Appeal against a decision that the SS’s refusal of a student loan was a breach of the claimant’s human rights.
Held: The Secretary of State’s appeal against the judge’s decision on the settlement criterion was allowed and the appellant’s appeal against his decision on the lawful ordinary residence criterion was dismissed.
Laws LJ (with whom Floyd LJ agreed) held that the Secretary of State was justified in making, and might even be rationally required to make, a bright-line rule and he was entitled to adopt a criterion based on settlement as defined from time to time by the Home Office.
Vos LJ held that what ‘saved’ the requirement was the possibility that the Home Office might exercise its discretion to grant ILR to children in accordance with the Secretary of State’s duty under section 55(1) of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 to ensure that her functions are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the United Kingdom.
Judges:
Laws, Floyd, Vos LJJ
Citations:
[2014] EWCA Civ 1216
Links:
Statutes:
Education (Student Support) Regulations 2011, European Convention on Human Rights 2 14
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Tigere, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills SC 29-Jul-2015
After increasing university fees, the student loan system was part funded by the government. They introduced limits to the availability of such loans, and a student must have been lawfully ordinarily resident in the UK for three years before the day . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Education, Human Rights
Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.538184
