Jonathan Bishop v The Student Loans Company Limited

The claimant, a disabled postgraduate student in receipt of a Disabled Postgraduate Student’s Grant, sought interim mandatory and prohibitory injunctions requiring the Student Loans Company Limited (SLC) to fund recommended support workers (principally those provided via CEARSW), taxi travel and to refrain from relying on an asserted conflict of interest. The court analysed the statutory scheme (Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998; Higher Education Act 2004; Education (Student Support) (Wales) Regulations 2018 Schedule 4) and applied Civil Procedure Rules r.54 dealing with judicial review procedure.

Key legal principles: (a) claims seeking mandatory or prohibitory orders to compel a public body in the exercise of public-law duties must generally be brought by the Part 54 judicial review procedure (r.54.2–3); (b) interim injunctions follow the American Cyanamid principles (serious issue to be tried, adequacy of damages, balance of convenience); and (c) rules on evidence and service (CPR r.32, r.23 and PD23A) govern interim applications.

Material grounds for decision: the pleaded mandatory relief required use of the Part 54 procedure and it was not just or convenient to grant interim relief in Part 7 proceedings; alternatively, on the merits there was no serious issue to be tried because (i) there was contemporaneous corporate evidence that the claimant exercised substantial control over CEARSW, justifying the SLC’s application of the Welsh conflict policy; (ii) the claimant had not put before the court the relevant application, assessments or SLC decisions for the 2024/25 academic year; and (iii) there was no basis on the papers for ordering the SLC to commit additional public funds. The interim applications were dismissed and certified totally without merit.

This was a first instance Part 7 claim brought by a disabled postgraduate student seeking interim injunctive relief against the Student Loans Company (SLC) to enforce provision of support funded by the Disabled Postgraduate Student’s Grant. The claimant sought mandatory relief compelling the SLC to fund support workers recommended by needs assessments (including continuity of support from workers supplied through CEARSW), an order preventing the SLC from excluding CEARSW-affiliated individuals on the basis of an alleged conflict of interest, funding for taxis, a restriction on any reduction of DSA funding and declarations and damages under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010.

The court framed the principal legal issues as: (i) whether the substantive claims and the interim mandatory relief were required to be brought by way of judicial review under CPR r.54; (ii) whether there was a serious issue to be tried and whether interim relief was justified applying American Cyanamid principles; (iii) whether the SLC lawfully applied the Welsh Government conflict-of-interest policy in respect of CEARSW; and (iv) whether the claimant had adduced sufficient evidence, including up-to-date applications, needs assessments and SLC decisions for the 2024/25 academic year.

The judge reasoned that mandatory relief and mixed claims requiring declarations or mandatory/prohibitory remedies must be pursued by the Part 54 judicial review procedure (r.54.2 and r.54.3(1)), and it would not be just or convenient to grant interim mandatory relief in Part 7 proceedings thereby circumventing the JR rules and time limits. Applying American Cyanamid, the court found no serious issue to be tried on the merits because public records and the company accounts evidenced the claimant’s significant control over CEARSW, justifying SLC reliance on the conflict policy; the claimant had not placed before the court any application, needs assessment or decision relevant to the 2024/25 year; and there was no quantifiable basis on which the court could order funding. The court also took into account procedural rules on evidence and the absence of properly exhibited documents. The interim applications were dismissed and certified totally without merit; the judge indicated the court would consider a civil restraint order.

The court dismissed the claimant’s applications for interim injunctive relief. Rationale: (1) the substantive relief sought comprised mandatory public-law remedies that should have been brought by the Part 54 judicial review procedure (CPR r.54.2–3), and it was not just or convenient to grant interim relief in Part 7 proceedings which would circumvent the judicial review rules and time limits; (2) alternatively, on the merits, there was no serious issue to be tried because evidence on Companies House and the company accounts supported the SLC’s finding of the claimant’s control over CEARSW, the claimant had not produced the required up-to-date application, needs assessments or SLC decisions for the 2024/25 academic year, and there was no basis to order the SLC to commit unspecified additional public funds. The interim applications were dismissed and certified totally without merit.

The judgment is at first instance. The court recorded that His Honour Judge Lambert refused the claimant’s earlier application for permission to apply for judicial review on 14 November 2019 in respect of decisions made in 2017–2019, finding the 2017 claim out of time and that a statutory appeal was an alternative remedy for later years. The current proceedings were commenced as a Part 7 claim in the High Court.