The London Reading College Ltd, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Factual and Procedural Background

The London Reading College ("the College") was removed from the UK Border Agency's ("the UKBA") Sponsor Register by letter dated 28 October 2009. The College challenged this revocation decision, seeking a quashing of the decision and damages under section 8 of the Human Rights Act. The College had been granted a Tier 4 license on 29 January 2009, essential for its business of providing educational courses primarily to international students. The UKBA conducted visits on 1 July and 30 September 2009, identifying deficiencies in record keeping, attendance monitoring, and concerns about the English language testing of students. Despite some improvements noted during the second visit, the UKBA ultimately decided to revoke the license citing unresolved serious concerns, particularly regarding English language abilities of some migrant students and breaches of Tier 4 Sponsor Obligations. The College made representations in response to the UKBA's concerns but contended it was not given a fair opportunity to address all material criticisms prior to revocation. The College subsequently faced financial and operational consequences, including refunding student fees due to the inability to sponsor visas.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the UKBA's decision to revoke the College's Tier 4 Sponsor Licence complied with the requirements of procedural fairness under common law and the Defendant's own guidance.
2. Whether the UKBA failed to consider alternative and less drastic sanctions before revoking the licence or failed to explain the rejection of such alternatives.
3. Whether the decision to revoke the licence was irrational or disproportionate in light of the UKBA's published policy.
4. Whether the revocation breached Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), concerning the peaceful enjoyment of possessions.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The revocation decision breached procedural fairness because the College was not given adequate notice or opportunity to respond to all material criticisms, notably the serious concerns about students' English language abilities raised for the first time in the revocation letter.
• The UKBA failed to consider or explain why alternative sanctions to revocation were not adopted, rendering the decision irrational and disproportionate.
• The revocation breached Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR by depriving the College of a valuable licence without lawful procedure and proportionality.

Respondent's Arguments

• Procedural fairness requirements depend on the nature of the decision and the statutory framework; no separate opportunity to respond was required after the initial representations since the decision-making process was continuous.
• The criticisms motivating revocation were consistent with earlier concerns about record keeping and honesty; the College was aware it was under scrutiny for these issues.
• The decision to revoke was rational and proportionate given the serious concerns about compliance and the importance of immigration control.
• Even if the revocation decision was quashed, the College would lose its licence due to subsequent independent findings by the Accreditation Service for International Colleges (ASIC) that the College was unfit to operate, justifying revocation on other grounds.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the procedural fairness obligations of the UKBA in the context of revoking a valuable licence with serious commercial consequences. It emphasised that fairness requires the license holder to be given clear and detailed notice of the specific criticisms motivating the revocation decision, to enable a meaningful opportunity to respond. The court found that while the UKBA had raised concerns about record keeping and honesty in prior correspondence, the critical issue of insufficient English language testing was a fresh and substantive allegation not previously disclosed. This failure to provide fair notice deprived the College of the chance to address the key grounds of revocation, amounting to a breach of procedural fairness.

The court acknowledged the respondent's argument that the decision-making process was continuous and that the criticisms were related, but held that the nature and detail of the new allegation required explicit notice. It also rejected the suggestion that internal UKBA documents supporting revocation outweighed the procedural defects, noting that senior decision-makers are not bound by junior officers' views but must act fairly in public dealings.

On the merits, the court recognized the serious nature of the UKBA's regulatory function and the importance of maintaining immigration control, accepting that revocation would not necessarily be irrational or disproportionate if procedural fairness had been observed. The court rejected the respondent's argument that subsequent independent findings by ASIC justified withholding relief, finding it inappropriate to deny redress for unlawful decisions on that basis.

Regarding the Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR claim, the court found that the revocation was not "subject to the conditions provided for by law" due to the procedural unfairness, thus amounting to a breach of the Convention right.

Holding and Implications

The court held that the decision to revoke the College's Tier 4 Sponsor Licence was procedurally unfair because the College was not given adequate notice or opportunity to respond to all material allegations, particularly the concerns about English language testing.

As a result, the revocation decision was quashed. The court rejected the respondent's argument that subsequent independent findings justified withholding relief. The breach of procedural fairness also constituted a violation of Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR. The court indicated that it would hear further submissions on the assessment of damages for this breach.

The direct effect of this decision is to restore the College's licence and provide a basis for damages. No new precedent was established beyond the application of established procedural fairness principles to the facts.