Mandalia v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 59 at [29]-[31]

KEY POINTS

• When a public authority makes its proposed course of action (or policy) public, the courts will order the public authority to follow that course of action, unless there is a compelling reason not to.

• There has been some departure from the application of the doctrine of legitimate expectation in cases where:

(1) one is unaware of the policy until after the determination adverse to them was made; and

(2) wherein reliance is placed on guidance issued by one public body to another.

FACTS

• Mr. Mandalia needed to renew his visa because he had traveled from India to the UK to study. He had to fulfill a number of conditions, including having £5,400 in his bank account for 28 straight days prior to applying, in order to do so.

• He provided a bank statement that fell short of the required 28-day period. At first, his application was denied, and he was threatened with deportation from the UK. He was unsuccessful in his appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.

• Later, he successfully appealed the removal judgment to the Upper Tribunal, but he did not address the rejection of his application for a visa extension because of specific directives given to caseworkers.

• Despite having jurisdiction, the Court of case ultimately rejected Mr. Mandalia's case.

JUDGEMENT

• Appeal allowed.

COMMENTARY

• The Supreme Court stressed in this decision the significance of public authorities abiding by their established policies in the absence of compelling grounds to do otherwise.

• This serves as a safeguard against arbitrary decision-making by public authorities.