A Victory for Procedural Fairness: Oxford Business College Wins Judicial Review Against Department for Education

A Victory for Procedural Fairness: Oxford Business College Wins Judicial Review Against Department for Education

By Rudi Ramdarshan

26 August 2025

As part of the legal team for Oxford Business College (OBC), I have witnessed firsthand a case that strikes at the heart of administrative justice and governmental overreach. The successful Judicial Review of the Decision to de-designate OBC’s courses, culminating in a High Court victory on Friday, 22nd August 2025, is more than a win for one institution; it is a stark reminder of the necessity for fairness, transparency, and the rule of law when the state apparatus engages with private enterprise. 

Oxford Business College, founded in 1985, has a commendable history of widening participation in higher education, often serving as a vital steppingstone for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. It operates through franchise agreements with five Lead Providers—registered Higher Education institutions regulated by the Office for Students (OfS). This model is a well-established and successful component of the UK’s higher education landscape. The regulatory relationship is clear: the OfS oversees the Lead Providers, who in turn are contractually responsible for ensuring the quality and compliance of their franchise partners like OBC. 

The peculiarity of this case began in mid-2024 when the Department for Education (DfE) bypassed this established regulatory structure. Citing an investigation by the Student Loans Company (SLC) into concerning patterns that might indicate the presence of non-genuine students, the DfE initiated direct contact with OBC.  

Despite the absence of any direct regulatory relationship, the college chose to cooperate in good faith, viewing the investigation as an opportunity to identify and rectify any potential procedural weaknesses. This was in line with the findings of its own Lead Providers, whose prior investigations had found no wrongdoing and had merely recommended a scheme for continued monitoring and process improvement. 

What ensued was a Kafkaesque ordeal. The college’s reasonable requests for the very information needed to meaningfully engage with the investigation were consistently met with refusal and obfuscation. Promises of “emerging findings” from the government’s investigators, the Government Internal Audit Agency (GIAA), never materialised, leaving OBC to grapple with a formless and ever-shifting set of undisclosed standards. 

The process was not just opaque; it was fundamentally flawed. It later came to light during legal proceedings that the GIAA’s investigation was based on a sample of 200 students that was not selected at random. Instead, the GIAA had deliberately selected 200 specific students of potential concern. This crucial fact, which fundamentally skewed the investigation’s findings from the outset, was hidden from OBC. Drawing conclusions about a student body of 5,400 from such a sample is a deeply flawed methodology, yet it formed the basis of the DfE’s entire case. 

Furthermore, the DfE’s handling of the GIAA’s reports demonstrated a shocking lack of transparency. The full, unredacted reports, which were finally disclosed to OBC just one working day before the substantive hearing, revealed a narrative starkly different from the one presented by the DfE. The DfE had stated in a witness statement that “A small number of further redactions were made to information that was not relevant to or outside the scope of the investigation”. This echoed the sentiment in OBC refusal letter which state that “these documents were subject to only minimal redaction to remove details that might reveal the identities of individuals or material connected to other investigations”. 

The complete reports did not support the draconian measure of de-designation. Instead, they recommended “strict documentation protocols, consistent verification procedures, and strengthening the admission process…” “standardised procedures” “regular audits of documentation compliance”, a far cry from the wholesale shutdown which the Secretary of State ultimately pursued. The standard approach of identifying where redactions were made was not followed. The DfE had systematically excised all factual underpinnings and recommendations from the summary reports provided to the college, going so far as to re-number paragraphs to conceal the existence of redactions or appendices. This calculated act of concealment made it impossible for OBC to comment on the factual accuracy of the findings against it. 

The situation escalated dramatically with the “minded to” decision, delivered to OBC with an unreasonably short deadline for response. In a move that was admitted to be “political”—a term used in court by the DfE own counsel—The Sunday Times appeared to have been briefed on the decision, publishing a damaging and unsubstantiated article alongside a ministerial opinion piece by the Secretary of State, Bridget Phillipson, who declared her intent to take “the firmest action” just days before the minded to decision was made. 

OBC’s pleas for the underlying evidence needed to formulate a proper response were denied. Its comprehensive 68-page representation was summarily dismissed as a mere “disagreement of interpretation.” Meanwhile, supportive representations from its university partners, including proposals for a “teach out” option and challenges to the DfE’s reference to incorrect policies, were seemingly ignored. 

The lack of candour continued into the judicial review proceedings. A senior civil servant provided a statement that was “materially misleading”, downplaying the substantial differences between the summary and full GIAA reports. It was only through persistent legal pressure that the unredacted reports were finally disclosed at the eleventh hour, revealing the true nature of the GIAA’s findings and the extent of the DfE’s misrepresentation. 

The High Court’s judgment was a resounding vindication for OBC. The Honourable Justice Naomi Ellenbogen found that the process had denied the college the basic tenets of natural justice. She stated  

“In all the circumstances…I am satisfied on the facts of this case that absent counter prevailing public policy reason procedural fairness dictated that OBC was entitled to full disclosure of the evidence and findings against it… Only on that basis could OBC have a fair crack of the whip.”  

The court also recognised that OBC’s contracts with its partners constituted a “possession” under Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, opening the door for a future claim for damages. 

Crucially, the Secretary of State on day one of the trial conceded that there is “nothing stopping from OBC setting up a new franchise agreement,” and that any new courses would be automatically designated. This represents a significant retreat from the initial decision, which sought to effectively bar OBC from the sector.  

This case serves as a cautionary tale of governmental overreach. It underscores the principle that citizens and their businesses must be treated with procedural fairness and objectivity, free from political pressures. The High Court’s decision is not merely a victory for Oxford Business College; it is a powerful affirmation of the rule of law.