The High Court has dismissed a judicial review challenging the refusal of an employment permit for a trainee accountant role. Mr Justice Heslin ruled that the Minister was not legally bound by the UK Office for National Statistics’ advice on occupational codes and had not erred in refusing the permit.
The applicant, a Venezuelan national with a public accounting degree and an Irish business accounting certificate, sought to quash a statutory review decision dated 15 July 2019. That decision upheld an earlier refusal of an application made on her behalf in November 2018 for a general employment permit. The court’s judgment was delivered on 25 March 2020.
The applicant argued that “Trainee Accountant” should be classified under code 2421, which appears in Schedule 3 of the Employment Permits Regulations 2017, rather than code 4122 in Schedule 4, which covers book-keepers, payroll managers and wage clerks. She relied on UK occupational classification guidance and advice from the UK ONS helpdesk, which said it would advise code 2421 based on the information supplied.
The judge noted that the UK advice came after the Minister’s review decision and was not available to the decision-maker. He also found that the Regulations used some SOC 2010 codes but did not incorporate the entire UK classification system or make UK ONS advice binding. The Minister’s published guidance said the Department assessed roles using its own criteria, including salary, job title, qualifications, duties and job specifications.
The court accepted uncontroverted evidence for the Minister that the role did not require the applicant to be a qualified accountant and was assessed as an administrative role under code 4122. The judge found that the applicant did not meet the specified Schedule 3 categories for code 2421, which included particular qualified or certified accountants and tax consultants. He rejected the argument that the word “trainee” should be disregarded so the role could be treated as falling within that schedule.
The applicant had also not disclosed an earlier refused permit application in her initial judicial review papers. The court said that issue played no part in its findings and, because the applicant was unsuccessful, it was unnecessary to decide its effect. The court dismissed the application; it did not quash the refusal or order the Minister to reconsider it.