Following an expedited hearing in August 2025, the Administrative Court (Ellenbogen J) handed down judgment in R (on the application of Oxford Business College UK Limited) v Secretary of State for Education [2025] EWHC 2299 (Admin).

By a decision dated 17 April 2025, the Secretary of State (“SoS”) removed the designation of all courses provided by Oxford Business College (“OBC”), with the consequence that those courses were no longer eligible for student loan funding (the “Decision”).

The Decision followed an investigation by the Government Internal Audit Agency (the “GIAA”) into OBC, including its document verification processes, English language checks, and monitoring of student attendance.  The GIAA’s reports did not allege or find any abuse of the student support system on the part of OBC.

OBC commenced judicial review proceedings challenging the Decision on various grounds, including that it contravened essential requirements of procedural fairness.  OBC also brought a claim for unlawful interference with its right under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (“A1P1”) to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions.

The Court held that a high level of procedural fairness was required (at [48]-[49]), including in light of the far-reaching consequences of the Decision for OBC (which OBC contended would lead to the closure of its business).  OBC was entitled to have sight of documents and information which were necessary to enable it properly to respond to adverse findings by the GIAA or the SoS (at [51]).  Despite this:

  • The SoS had not identified, including in the Decision itself, the criteria and standards by reference to which OBC’s conduct was to be judged.  The reasons given for the Decision were inadequate (at [54]-[55]).  Furthermore, OBC did not know the “target” at which any representations were to be aimed (at [49](a)).
  • OBC was provided with redacted versions of summaries of the reports prepared by the GIAA, and not the full reports themselves.  The full reports were not disclosed to OBC until the Friday before the hearing.  Upon examination of the full reports, they were materially different to the summaries provided to OBC, among other things because the summaries did not include all of the underlying data and the method by which the student sample had been selected by the GIAA for analysis (at [49](e)).
  • While OBC was consulted during the investigation and was given an opportunity to provide representations, both opportunities were afforded in the context of inadequate, incomplete and misleading information, and over a very short period (at [52]).  OBC had not been provided with key materials and representations upon which the SoS relied.

OBC’s natural justice challenge accordingly succeeded and the Decision was quashed.

In relation to A1P1, the Court found that the contracts between OBC and the Lead Providers are “possessions”.  The Court distinguished the decision in R (Guildhall College Limited) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2014] EWCA Civ 986, where it was contended that designation was the relevant possession.  In OBC’s case, it was the contract (a commercial agreement) which constituted the possession, and not designation per se.  The contracts permitted OBC to assign its rights and to subcontract, with the consent of the relevant university (at [69]).

Wee-An Tan (led by Jason Coppel KC of 11KBW) acted for OBC, instructed by Rudi Ramdarshan, Victoria Huxley and Tom Stubbs of Ronald Fletcher Baker LLP.

As it was common ground that the A1P1 claim did not need to be determined before 1 September 2025, the Court directed that the remaining issues in relation to OBC’s A1P1 claim be determined at a further hearing in December 2025.  Wee-An will be led by Jessica Simor KC of Matrix at that hearing.

A copy of the judgment can be found here.