Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2013] All ER (D) 211 (Jul)
Neutral Citation: [2013] UKSC 51
Court: Supreme Court
Judge:

Lord Hope DP, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed and Lord Carnwath SCJJ

Representation Manjit Gill QC and Edward Nicholson (instructed by Chhokar & Co) for the appellant in the first appeal.
  Jonathan Swift QC and Robert Palmer (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State in the first appeal.
  Zane Malik (instructed by Mayfair Solicitors) for the appellant in the second appeal.
  Jonathan Swift QC and Cathryn McGahey (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State in the second appeal.
  Richard Drabble QC, Shahram Taghavi and Charles Banner (instructed by Charles Russell LLP) for the interveners.
Judgment Dates: 17 July 2013

Catchwords

Immigration - Education - Sponsor licensing unit - Respondent Secretary of State revoking appellants' sponsor licence and refusing Highly Trusted Sponsor status - Appellants judicial review applications ultimately failing - Appellants appealing on basis Secretary of State unlawfully delegating power and guidance on sponsor licensing being required to be laid before Parliament - Whether Secretary of State unlawfully delegating powers - Whether guidance required to be laid before Parliament - Whether Secretary of State having power to operate system of sponsor licensing - , - Immigration Rules 1994 (HC 395).

The Case

Immigration Education. The appeals concerned the system for licensing educational institutions to sponsor students from outside the European Economic Area under Tier 4 of the points-based system of immigration control. The educational institutions contended that the Secretary of State's guidance on sponsors had unlawfully delegated her power and contained rules which were required to be laid before Parliament. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the appeals, held that the Secretary of State had not delegated her power as she retained the last word on leave to enter or remain. The rules in the guidance were concerned with the position of the sponsor and did not have to be laid before Parliament. Finally, the Secretary of State's statutory power to administer the system of immigration control extended to ancillary and incidental administrative powers, including the vetting of sponsors.

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.