21.43R (Tigere) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2015] UKSC 57, [2015] 1 WLR 3820
It was incompatible with Article 2 of the 1st Protocol to the ECHR and Article 14 ECHR to exclude from student loans prospective students who had not clocked up three years of lawful, ordinary residence but who had lived in the UK for most of their lives, had been educated here, could not be removed save for grave misconduct and were treated throughout as members of UK society
Facts: Ms Tigere was excluded from a student loan because she had not clocked up three years’ lawful, ordinary residence in the UK, despite the fact that she had lived in the UK for many years and been educated in England throughout her school career, had been granted LTR with recourse to public funds, would qualify for ILR in a few years and had obtained a university place.
Judgment: the Supreme Court (Hale, Kerr and Hughes JJSC, Sumption and Reed JJSC dissenting), held, in passing that ‘45 …There are indeed strong public policy reasons for insisting that any period of ordinary residence required before a person becomes entitled to public services be lawful ordinary residence’. A similar approach was taken in
R (YA) v Secretary of State for Health,
1[2009] EWCA Civ 225, (2009) 12 CCLR 213.but a different approach was taken in the context of last-ditch support for the destitute in
R v Wandsworth LBC ex p O.
2[2000] 1 WLR 2539, (2000) 3 CCLR 237.