The plaintiffs had come to England to study at a college run by the Church of Scientology, and now complained that their student visas had not been extended so as to allow them to complete their studies. They said that the decision had been made for improper reasons. They now appealed against an order striking out their claim.
Held: The appeal failed (Russell LJ dissenting). The action was unsustainable. Had there been a duty to act fairly, there was nothing to say that the respondent had not so acted.
Widgery LJ said: ‘ here is some difference of opinion as to the right under the Prerogative to deport aliens already here, but I do not understand it to be said in any way that the opportunity to land initially is one which cannot be refused arbitrarily, and that position is now made clear, if it was not made clear before, by the Aliens Order of 1953. Accordingly, when an alien approaching this country is refused leave to land, he has no right capable of being infringed in such a way as to enable him to come to this Court for the purpose of assistance, and, since he has no kind of right or interest capable of being infringed or affected, the considerations urged by Mr. Hogg could not affect such a case at all. In such a situation the alien’s desire to land can be rejected for good reason or bad, for sensible reason or fanciful or for no reason at all. ‘
Lord Denning MR, Russell, Widgery LJJ
 2 WLR 337,  2 Ch 149,  EWCA Civ 1, (1969) 133 JP 274,  1 All ER 904
England and Wales
Cited – Rex v Port of London Authority 1919
A tribunal may, in the honest exercise of its discretion, adopt a policy, and announce it to those concerned, so long as it is ready to listen to reasons why, in an exceptional case, that policy should not be applied. . .
Cited – Rex v Leman Street Police Station Inspector, ex parte Venicoff 1920
The Aliens Order of 1919 empowered the Secretary of State to make a deportation order against an alien if he deemed it to be conducive to the public good. The Home Secretary had expressed no concluded view that the critical allegations, namely . .
Cited – Regina v Governor of Brixton Prison, ex parte Soblen CA 1963
Lord Denning MR discussed a decision to deport the applicant. The validity of the Minister’s act: ‘depends on the purpose with which the act is done.: ‘If it was done for an authorised purpose, it was lawful. If it was done professedly for an . .
Cited – Ridge v Baldwin (No 1) HL 14-Mar-1963
No Condemnation Without Opportunity For Defence
Ridge, a Chief Constable, had been wrongfully dismissed because he was not given the opportunity of presenting his defence. He had been acquitted of the charges brought against him, but the judge at trial had made adverse comments about his . .
Cited – in re HK (an Infant) QBD 1967
A Commonwealth citizen had a right to be admitted to this country if he was (as this party claimed to be) under the age of 16. The immigration officers were not satisfied that he was under 16 and refused him admission.
Held: The Lord Chief . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 October 2021; Ref: scu.262783