header-logo header-logo

30 July 2015
Issue: 7664 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Right to student loan

A UK student has won a significant victory over the right to apply for a student loan, in a landmark case at the Supreme Court.

Beaurish Tigere, who moved here from Zambia at the age of six and is lawfully resident in the UK, wished to study international business management but was treated as an overseas student, which meant she was ineligible for student loans and charged foreign student fee rates.

Students with “discretionary” or “limited” but not indefinite leave to remain (ILR) have been treated as overseas students when it comes to university since 2012, under the Education (Student Fees, Award and Support (Amendment) Regulations 2011 (SI 2011/87).

In R (on the application of Tigere) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2015] UKSC 57, however, the Supreme Court held that a blanket ban on student loans to anyone who doesn’t have either ILR or British citizenship, regardless of their length of residence or strength of their ties to the country, is disproportionate and cannot not be justified.

Delivering the lead judgment, Lady Hale said: “The reality is, even though she does not have ILR, her established private life here means that she cannot be removed from the UK unless she commits a serious criminal offence and she will almost inevitably secure ILR in due course. She is just as closely connected and integrated into the UK society as her settled peers.”

In his judgment, Lord Hughes said there was no evidence that BIS considered the impact on young people with strong ties to the UK, whose future is clearly here, when it amended the rules.

Just for Kids Law, which acted for Tigere, estimates that about 600-1,000 students a year have been affected since the restrictions were introduced in 2012.  Its director, Shauneen Lambe says: “This ruling is wonderful news for many ambitious and academically successful young people, who would otherwise be blocked from ever entering professions which require a degree.”

Issue: 7664 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll