All your resources at your fingertips.Learn More
The Defendant had lawfully and rationally revoked the Claimant's Tier 4 General (Student) Sponsor Licence and the decision had been based on evidence that the Claimant had failed to comply with its duties.
1 March 2013
(1) The Claimant, Manchester College of Accountancy & Management, brought this claim for judicial review against the Defendant's decisions to suspend and revoke its Tier 4 General (Student) Sponsor Licence. Without this licence, the Claimant was unable to issue confirmation for acceptance for studies for students wishing to study in the UK.
(2) The Claimant brought the challenge on three grounds:
a. The Defendant's reliance upon the Tier 4 Points Based System Sponsor Guidance to sponsor and/or revoke the Claimant's licence was unlawful.
b. The decision-making procedure applied in suspending and revoking the licence was unlawful, unreasonable and unfair and the decisions were Wednesbury unreasonable.
c. The Claimant was entitled to damages for economic loss suffered as a result of the suspension and revocation of the licence.
(3) Since becoming a licensed sponsor, various deficiencies were identified as to the Claimant's record keeping, reporting and practices. The revocation letter identified five areas of complaint (i) attendance records; (ii) students who failed to enrol; (iii) non-compliance with action plans implemented; (iv) student assessment; and (v) reporting duties.
(4) The Claimant accepted that due to the Court of Appeal's decision in R (on the application of New London College Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 51 grounds (a) and (c) failed. As an appeal was pending in that case, the Claimant's position was reserved so as to allow for these grounds to be argued if the Supreme Court decision allowed for that.
(5) HELD: The Court was satisfied that there were no procedural irregularities in the Defendant using information disclosed by a member of the Claimant's staff to identify irregularities in the Claimant's compliance with its duties. Furthermore, the independent evidence available inevitably led to the same conclusion.
(6) The Court held that on the available evidence, the Defendant had been entitled to conclude that the Claimant had not been properly monitoring its student's attendance. There was also held to be no procedural unfairness in the decision-making procedure adopted by the Claimant. The reasons for revocation had previously been raised with the Claimant. As such, the decision to suspend the Claimant's licence had been made in accordance with the relevant policy and guidance, as had the decision to revoke the licence.
(7) It was therefore held that there was no unlawful, unreasonable or unfair suspension or revocation of the Claimant's licence, and the Wednesbury challenge was without merit.
 - Grounds (a) & (c) failed.
 - Revocation letter.
 - No procedural irregularity.
 - Not monitoring attendance.
 - Previously informed of complaints.
 - Accordance guidance.
- - Conclusion.
To read the full case summary and to view the case transcript, you must subscribe to Jordans Public Law Online (if you already subscribe click here to log in).
To request a free trial click here and select Jordans Public Law online from the drop down menu
Keeping you up to date with the latest developments in education law.