Mandalia v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 59
Facts
Mr Mandalia sought further permission to study accountancy in the United Kingdom shortly before his existing student leave expired. His application needed evidence that he had maintained at least £5,400 for a continuous 28-day period. Although the bank statement he supplied showed ample funds, it covered 22 days. The agency rejected the application without asking him to supply the remaining evidence. Its caseworkers had an evidential flexibility instruction governing requests for missing documents. Mandalia relied on that instruction in challenging the refusal. The dispute reached the Supreme Court after the Court of Appeal rejected his argument that the agency should have contacted him before deciding the application.
Legal Issue
The latter Process Instructions had not been followed, thus, resulting in the claimant challenging the decision to refuse his visa extension, as he expected the process instructions to be followed.
Held
The Supreme Court allowed Mandalia’s appeal. Properly interpreted, the department’s process instruction required him to be invited to supply the missing evidence before refusal. The Secretary of State did not argue that a good reason justified departing from that instruction; the dispute concerned its meaning. The court held that interpreting the policy was a legal question for the court, rather than one conclusively determined by the department’s own view. Lord Wilson explained the obligation through good administration and consistent dealing with the public. The refusal was consequently unlawful. The judgment did not dispense with the financial eligibility condition or decide that every immigration applicant must receive unlimited opportunities to repair an application.
⭐ Legal Principle
A public authority should follow its applicable policy unless it has a good reason to depart from it. This duty rests on good administration and is not confined to personal reliance. The court determines the policy’s legal meaning for itself.
Significance
Mandalia grounds adherence to policy in good administration, not solely in proof that an applicant knew of and relied on the policy. It complements British Oxygen: discretion must remain flexible, but a published or operative policy cannot simply be ignored without a good reason. The court interprets the policy’s meaning for itself. The outcome did not waive the financial requirement or guarantee immigration leave. It required the decision-maker to use the process that was applicable to the missing evidence.
Common exam questions about this case
Why was refusal without requesting the missing evidence unlawful?
The applicable process instruction required the caseworker to invite correction of the documentary gap in these circumstances. The department did not identify a good reason to depart from that policy. It therefore refused the application without following the procedure its own policy required, even though the underlying financial condition remained relevant.
Did Mandalia have to prove he knew about the instruction?
No. The obligation was explained through good administration and consistent treatment, rather than being confined to an individual’s reliance on a known promise. That distinction matters where an internal policy guides how the public will be treated. Absence of personal knowledge did not authorise the department to disregard it.
Did the court decide that the visa had to be granted?
No. It held that the application had to be processed lawfully under the relevant instruction, including the opportunity to remedy the evidence deficit. Whether all substantive requirements were met remained a separate matter. Procedural success did not remove the financial requirement or create a general right to submit any evidence at any time.