Court declares University’s failure to rescind its withdrawal of sponsorship as unlawful

The High Court found that a University’s failure to rescind its withdrawal of sponsorship, or at least inquire about the possibility of doing so with the Home Office, was either a fettering of its discretion or irrational conduct given the circumstances of the case.

The judgment is a welcome reminder that while sponsors have strict duties of compliance, they also have a duty to act rationally and flexibly and, as the Court noted in the final paragraph of its judgement, “perhaps simply with more pastoral understanding”. The case is Zuhaib Khan, R (on the application of) v Coventry University [2025] EWHC 3120 (Admin).

Legal framework

Universities that sponsor international students have a duty to report students in various situations by virtue of Home Office Student sponsor guidance: Sponsorship duties.

In particular paragraph 7.5(c) of the guidance requires sponsors to report any students who have not enrolled by the enrolment deadline within 10 working days of that date of that deadline. Paragraph 7.5(f) summarises what a sponsor should do if a student defers their studies after they have arrived in the UK and are no longer actively studying:

You may continue to sponsor a student who has deferred their studies for up to a maximum of 60 calendar days (except for recognised vacation periods) providing you can continue to carry out your sponsorship duties and the student will be able to complete their course within their existing period of permission. If you think the student will not resume their studies after 60 calendar days, you must withdraw sponsorship.

In exceptional circumstances, such as serious illness or injury, you may continue to sponsor a student for longer than 60 calendar days, providing the student can still complete their course within their existing period of permission when they resume their studies.

It is for you to decide whether you are prepared to continue sponsoring a student during a deferral and, if necessary, provide evidence to verify this decision to our compliance officers.

You must report that the student has deferred their studies within 10 working days of agreeing the deferral. If you withdraw sponsorship, the student’s permission to stay is no longer valid and you must advise them to leave the UK.

Once the student is ready to resume their studies, you must assign a new CAS and the student must reapply for a new visa.

Background 

The university in this case had a clear policy that international students must pay a tuition deposit to enrol and that where a student failed to enrol by the deadline, sponsorship would be withdrawn. Payment had to be made through a third-party fee management company called Convera. The enrolment deadline was 7 July 2025.

The claimant made two separate payments of £4,000 on 4 July, but the second payment had an incorrect reference and was not forwarded to the University. The claimant corresponded with Convera to track down the second payment and repeatedly communicated with the university regarding the missing payment and even offered to pay the outstanding balance directly to the university but was told all payments had to go through Convera.

On Friday 18 July the university notified the claimant that as he had not enrolled it was withdrawing his visa sponsorship and had notified the Home Office. On 21 July, the following Monday, the outstanding balance was received by the university via Convera. The claimant offered to show receipts, demonstrating that he had in fact paid Convera back on 4 July, but on Tuesday 22 July the university again said he had missed the enrolment deadline and reiterated that it had withdrawn his sponsorship and notified the Home Office accordingly.

The claimant made a series of complaints and requests either to be reinstated or to be part of the next available intake. In later witness statements the university confirmed that students could enrol for the next intake up until 22 September 2025 and exceptional enrolment finished on 29 September; the university conceded that the claimant could have done this and completed all the teaching required within his current visa period which ended on 2 May 2026. 

However, that did not happen because the university had already withdrawn the claimant’s sponsorship and would not consider rescinding that decision or engaging with the Home Office about it. The Home Office only curtailed the claimant’s leave on 15 September, almost six weeks after the claimant’s request to resume studies on 30 July. 

The judicial review

The claimant sought judicial review on the grounds that:

1. payment had been made for the enrolment period;
2. enrolment ended on 7 July 2025;
3. if the enrolment period ended on 15 July, that was too quick to withdraw the sponsorship when the defendant was aware that a portion of the fee was in the pipeline;
4. it was irrational for the defendant not to withdraw its notification of withdrawal of sponsorship after it received the remaining fee on 21 July; and
5. the defendant’s decision of 18 July disproportionately interfered with the Article 8 ECHR rights of the Claimant.

 Permission was granted on grounds three, four and five.

The High Court’s decision

The Court dismissed ground three as, although it was harsh on the claimant, it was not wrong or irrational for the university to follow Home Office guidance and report the non-enrolment, given that the consequences of not following the guidance could have imperilled both its sponsor licence and the sponsorship of the other students.

The Court also dismissed ground five. While reporting the student to the Home Office did not interfere with claimant’s right to private life, the decision to withdraw sponsorship clearly did. The issue then was whether the interference was justified. The Court referred to its reasoning in ground three, concluding that complying with its sponsorship duties was sufficiently important to limit a protected right by withdrawing sponsorship.

When originally granting permission for ground four, the judge had also raised fettering of discretion and referred to R(AB) v SSHD [2018] EWCA Civ 383, paragraph [44]:

A public authority which has a discretionary power may adopt a policy or rule to regulate the exercise of the power and indeed, if it fails to act consistently with its rule or policy, its decision may be open to public law challenge by a person adversely affected. At the same time the principle against fettering discretion requires decision-makers not to shut their ears to claims falling outside the policies they have adopted.

The Court sided with the claimant on ground four. The Court found that when it became clear the claimant had paid in full, it was equally clear the claimant could have resumed his studies in September and the deferral would have been less than the 60 day-limit set out in in paragraph .7.5(f) of the Home Office Sponsor Guidance. But there was no evidence the defendant ever considered deferral and/or rescinding withdrawal of sponsorship. It simply ruled out the possibility. As such the defendant fettered its discretion.

Even if the university did exercise its discretion, the Court found that it was irrational for it not to rescind its withdrawal of sponsorship once it was clear that: (i) the claimant had paid his full tuition fees; (ii) his delay in payment was down to minor administrative error; and (iii) he still wished to enrol, having only missed at most three weeks’ of teaching and with enough time for him to enrol for the September 2025 teaching block and still finish his course on time before his visa expired.

In addition, even if the university did exercise its discretion rationally in not deferring the claimant’s enrolment, its failure even to make enquiries with the Home Office about whether sponsorship could be restored on some other basis was irrational.

The Court concluded at para [45]:

Therefore, the Defendant either fettered its discretion, exercised it irrationally in failing to rescind, or exercised it irrationally in failing even to enquire about that with the Home Office.