The Administrative Court has refused permission on all grounds in a judicial review brought by a group of higher education institutions contesting the classification of certain courses for student finance purposes.
Background of the dispute
In R (Bath Spa University and ors) v (1) Secretary of State for Education and (2) Student Loans Company Limited [2026] EWHC 2129 (Admin), five providers sought to overturn guidance that treated courses with teaching confined to weekends as falling within the statutory definition of “distance learning courses” under the Education (Student Support) Regulations 2011. That classification makes students on those programmes ineligible for particular types of support, notably maintenance loans and grants.
The complaint arose after the Student Loans Company (SLC) and the Department concluded that the courses in question should have been registered as distance learning. As a consequence, maintenance support had initially been paid to students enrolled on those programmes before the reclassification was applied.
Court findings and legal standing
The court refused permission on each of the grounds the claimants had advanced. It also accepted the SLC’s argument that the providers lacked standing to obtain a mandatory order compelling the company to reinstate student finance payments.
In addition, the claimants did not persuade the court that the SLC had acted unlawfully in the way it had handled the matter.
What was at stake
The litigation turned on interpretation of the 2011 Regulations and whether the pattern of attendance limited to weekends could lawfully be treated as distance learning for the purposes of student support. The ruling leaves intact the position taken by the Secretary of State and the SLC that such courses meet the statutory description and are therefore ineligible for some forms of maintenance support.
- Claimants: five higher education providers, including Bath Spa University (named claimant).
- Defendants: Secretary of State for Education and Student Loans Company Limited.
- Judicial outcome: permission to proceed with judicial review refused on all grounds.
Immediate consequences for students and providers
The judgment is likely to have practical implications for both students and institutions offering non-traditional delivery patterns. Institutions that have scheduled teaching predominantly at weekends face continued restrictions on qualifying their students for maintenance support if their programmes are treated as distance learning under the Regulations.
Providers who had not registered such programmes as distance learning — and whose students therefore initially received maintenance payments — will not be able to rely on the court to compel reinstatement of those payments, the ruling indicates.
| Issue | Position |
|---|---|
| Registration as distance learning | Courses with weekend-only attendance treated as distance learning under the 2011 Regulations |
| Eligibility for maintenance support | Ineligible where course is classified as distance learning |
| Court intervention | Permission for judicial review refused; no mandatory order against SLC |
Wider implications and next steps
The outcome will focus attention on course registration practices and on how institutions design and describe modes of delivery. Providers that offer teaching largely at weekends but wish students to retain access to maintenance support may need to review course structure, registration categorisation and their engagement with the SLC and the Department for Education.
The case has been reported in the press, and legal teams instructed included Ewan West KC and Clíodhna Kelleher for the Student Loans Company, with instruction by Browne Jacobson LLP.
For students already affected, the judgment underscores the importance of clarity about course classification before enrolment. For governors and academic planners, it emphasises the regulatory risks of innovative delivery models when those models have financial consequences for learners.
Further legal or policy challenges could still emerge, but for now the court has affirmed the existing administrative approach to classifying weekend-attendance programmes under the 2011 Regulations.
