The Court was asked as to: ‘the system for licensing educational institutions to sponsor students from outside the European Economic Area under Tier 4 of the current points-based system of immigration control.’ The appellant’s license to sponsor students had been revoked with no notice. They now appealed saying that the respondent’s Guidance was unlawful insofar as it purported to alter the effect of the stautory Rules but without parliamentary scrutiny.
Held: The appeals failed: ‘The Immigration Act does not prescribe the method of immigration control to be adopted. It leaves the Secretary of State to do that, subject to her laying before Parliament any rules that she prescribes as to the practice to be followed for regulating entry into and stay in the United Kingdom. Different methods of immigration control may call for more or less elaborate administrative infrastructure. It cannot have been Parliament’s intention that the Secretary of State should be limited to those methods of immigration control which required no other administrative measures apart from the regulation of entry into or stay in the United Kingdom. If the Secretary of State is entitled (as she plainly is) to prescribe and lay before Parliament rules for the grant of leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom which depend upon the migrant having a suitable sponsor, then she must be also be entitled to take administrative measures for identifying sponsors who are and remain suitable, even if these measures do not themselves fall within section 3(2) of the Act. This right is not of course unlimited. The Secretary of State cannot adopt measures for identifying suitable sponsors which are inconsistent with the Act or the Immigration Rules. Without specific statutory authority, she cannot adopt measures which are coercive; or which infringe the legal rights of others (including their rights under the Human Rights Convention); or which are irrational or unfair or otherwise conflict with the general constraints on administrative action imposed by public law.’
Orse R (New London College Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Migrants’ Rights Network intervening)
Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath
 UKSC 51,  Imm AR 151,  PTSR 995,  INLR 66,  WLR(D) 294,  4 All ER 195,  1 WLR 2358, UKSC 2012/0060
Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC
Immigration Act 1971 1(2)
England and Wales
At first instance – New London College Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 19-Oct-2010
The claimant sought interim relief in relation to it’s Tier 4 Sponsor Licence (A rating). The Secretary of State through the UK Border Agency had suspended it, jeopardising the business of the claimant, which involved the provision of education to . .
Appeal from – New London College Ltd, Regina (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 2-Feb-2012
The court was asked whether the removal of a Tier 4 General (Student) Sponsor Licence issued by UKBA which enabled it to issue a visa letter or confirmation of acceptance of studies to non-EEA students lacked the necessary legislative authority . .
Cited – West London Vocational Training College Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 16-Jan-2013
Cited – Munir and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 18-Jul-2012
The claimants were subject to deportation, but had settled here and begun a family. An earlier concession would have allowed him to stay, but it was withdrawn. The court was now asked whether statements by the Secretary of State of her policy as . .
Cited – Alvi, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 18-Jul-2012
The claimant had entered as a student, and then stayed under a work permit. New rules were brought in, and because his occupation as a physiotherapy assistant was not listed, he was not credited with sufficient points for a permit. The Court of . .
Cited – Odelola v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 20-May-2009
The appellant had applied for leave to remain as a postgraduate doctor. Before her application was determined, the rules changed. She said that her application should have been dealt with under the rules applicable at the time of her application. . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Health, ex parte C CA 21-Feb-2000
An extra-statutory database maintained by the Secretary of State of the names of people considered to be unsafe to work with children was lawful. Two competing and genuine interests were to be balanced. The right to pursue employment without being . .
Cited – Hooper and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 5-May-2005
The House was asked whether the payment of widow’s payment and widowed mother’s allowance to women alone discriminated against men.
Held: The Secretary’s appeal succeded. Section 6 of the 1998 Act permitted the discrimination as an existing . .
Cited – MO (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for Home Department CA 10-Apr-2008
The claimant appealed refusal of his claim of a right to remain in the UK working as a postgraduate doctor. The rules had changed and there were no transtional provisions.
Held: The claim was to be heard under the new provisions despite the . .
Cited – Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council and Another v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another CA 4-Mar-2008
The basis of the Crown’s power to exercise certain administrative powers to carry on the ordinary business of government which are not exercises of the royal prerogative and do not require statutory authority, was the Crown’s status as a common law . .
Cited – Patel and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 20-Nov-2013
The court was asked as to the respective duties of the Secretary of State and the First-tier Tribunal, on an appeal against refusal of an application to vary leave to enter or remain under the Immigration Act 1971, and more particularly as to the . .
Cited – Majera, Regina (on The Application of v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 20-Oct-2021
The Court was asked whether the Government (or, indeed, anyone else) can lawfully act in a manner which is inconsistent with an order of a judge which is defective, without first applying for, and obtaining, the variation or setting aside of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.512425