R (on the application of Singaram) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0192

Parties

Appellant(s)

Nagappan Singaram

Respondent(s)

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Issue

Was the decision of the Secretary of State to cancel the appellant’s leave to remain in the United Kingdom with immediate effect procedurally unfair?

Facts

The appellant is a national of India. The appellant entered the United Kingdom on 5 October 2022 on a student visa. He had leave to enter until 19 September 2024 to study a master’s degree at the Coventry University. His leave was subject to a condition prohibiting him from working in excess of 20 hours in a week. The Secretary of State for the Home Department (“the Secretary of State”) is responsible for immigration control in the UK. On 7 November 2023, immigration officers attended Lucky’s Off Licence (“Lucky’s”). The appellant was at the premises at the time. The immigration officer asked the appellant several questions. He was arrested as a person liable to immigration detention, on the basis that he was working more than 20 hours in a week in breach of the conditions of his leave. He was cautioned, interviewed and detained. During the interview, he was asked about his activities at Lucky’s. He answered that he was training there, and that he trained there on Monday and Tuesday, 9am to 6pm. He also confirmed that he worked a total of 19 hours a week at Tesco. After the interview had finished, he was asked if he wanted to make a voluntary departure from the UK. He expressed his desire to remain in the UK to finish his studies. On 17 November 2023, the immigration officer decided to cancel the appellant’s leave with immediate effect. This was because it was considered more likely than not that he had been working in breach of the conditions of his leave. The appellant applied for judicial review of this decision. The High Court refused permission on the papers on 7 November 2023. The High Court then refused permission following on oral hearing on 21 March 2024. The appellant applied for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Permission was granted to apply for judicial review on two grounds. The claim was directed to be heard in the Court of Appeal, instead of being remitted to the High Court. The appellant argued that, first, the Secretary of State’s decision was procedurally unfair and, secondly, it was unlawful because the claimant had not breached the conditions of his leave. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant’s claim. The Court of Appeal found that the decision was not procedurally unfair, and the immigration officer was entitled to conclude that the appellant had breached a condition of his leave. The appellant now appeals this decision to the Supreme Court.

Date of issue

2 December 2025

Case origin

PTA

Back to top