Manchester Trinity College Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- HIS HONOUR JUDGE PLATTS
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Immigration Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves the revocation of the claimant's Tier 4 sponsor license by the defendant due to a failure to notify a change in ownership through the SMS system. The court found that the defendant unlawfully relied on the October 2013 guidance retrospectively. The court also held that the claimant did not properly notify the defendant of the change in ownership, and that the defendant acted unfairly by not providing a warning or opportunity for the claimant to make representations before revoking the license. As a result, the court concluded that the decision to revoke the license was unreasonable and should be set aside.
J U D G M E N T
1. HIS HONOUR JUDGE PLATTS: This is an application for judicial review of the decision taken by the defendant on 19th November 2013, to revoke the claimant's Tier 4 sponsor licence. Permission was granted by Mr Vincent Fraser QC on 31st January 2014, and interim relief has been granted to the claimant by orders of His Honour Judge Gore QC on 3rd December 2013 which were continued on 31st January 2014.
2. The claimant is a limited company which was formed in 2004 to provide education principally to overseas students. In January 2009 it was granted a Tier 4 sponsor licence which it held until the decision which is the subject of this review.
3. The background to the decision to revoke is as follows. On 6th November 2012 Mr Hyda purchased the whole of the share holding in the claimant company and became its sole director. His evidence is that he was told by one of the outgoing directors Mr Mirza, that he, that is Mirza, had informed the defendant of the transfer of shareholding using the sponsorship management system, ("SMS"), that is a computerised reporting system operated by the defendant. The defendant denies having received such notification (this is an issue which I will have to address in due course). However there is no dispute until this decision the claimant company continued operating under the ownership of Mr Hyda.
4. On 12th November 2012 the claimant company submitted a request under SMS for a Miss Ayse Ahmed to be named as the authorising officer, the key contact and the new level 1 user. These requests were accepted by the defendant on 22nd and 23rd November 2012.
5. Subsequently on 4th December 2012 there was a full compliance visit at the claimant's premises by officers of the defendant. The claimant claims that the defendant's officers were given full access to all of the claimant's files and indeed were shown a staff list which should Mr Hyda as a "director/owner". There is no evidence before me from the defendant touching upon this visit.
6. On 26th December the claimant made an application for renewal of its Tier 4 licence. This was granted by the defendant on 14th February 2013 and in the meantime the claimant had been granted highly trusted status on 28th January 2013.
7. Between 5th and 7th March 2013 the claimant college underwent an oversight inspection carried out by the independent schools inspectorate. The report on the college's performance is generally satisfactory. Paragraph 1.2 of that report, fo