Search
Following rolled-up hearing, the Administrative Court has today refused permission on all grounds in R (Bath Spa University and ors) v (1) Secretary of State for Education and (2) Student Loans Company Limited [2026] EWHC 2129 (Admin), a claim in judicial review brought by five higher education providers against the Secretary of State for Education and the Student Loans Company (SLC).
The claim concerned the classification, for student finance purposes, of a number of higher education courses. On the relevant courses, students were required to attend teaching sessions only at weekends.
The Claimants challenged the Defendants’ position that such courses fell within the statutory definition of “distance learning courses” under the Education (Student Support) Regulations 2011 and were therefore ineligible for certain forms of student support, including maintenance loans and grants.
The dispute arose after it was identified that the courses had not been registered by the higher education providers as distance learning courses. As a result, maintenance support had been paid to students enrolled on those courses before the Secretary of State concluded that the courses had been incorrectly classified under the Regulations.
The Court refused permission on each of the proposed grounds of challenge. The Court also accepted SLC’s argument that the Claimants lacked standing to seek a mandatory order against SLC requiring the reinstatement of student finance payments and that, in any event, the Claimants had not established that SLC acted unlawfully.
The case has been reported in the press:
Ewan West KC and Clíodhna Kelleher were instructed on behalf of the Student Loans Company by Browne Jacobson LLP.