The High Court has dismissed a judicial review brought by a student who lost his postgraduate funding because of a gap in his lawful residence history, in a ruling that underlines how strictly the Student Loans Company applies continuous-residence requirements.

The case is R (on the application of Glory Osarenren Otabor) v Student Loans Company [2026] EWHC 2168 (Admin). The claimant, a student, challenged the refusal of his postgraduate student finance application. The refusal rested on a break in his lawful residence in the United Kingdom, which the Student Loans Company treated as fatal to his eligibility.

What did the court decide?

The court dismissed the challenge. It confirmed that once a fee waiver application is at issue, the framework operates as the Student Loans Company applied it. The judgment reinforces that a gap in continuous lawful residence can disqualify an applicant from postgraduate student finance, and that the courts will not soften that outcome through judicial review.

The ruling matters because postgraduate funding in the UK depends on meeting residence-based eligibility conditions. Applicants must show they satisfy those conditions on the statutory terms, not merely that they have spent time in the country. A period of unlawful residence — or a break between lawful statuses — can interrupt the continuity that the rules require.

Who is affected?

The decision directly concerns students applying for postgraduate student finance who have any interruption in their lawful residence history. That includes:

• Applicants who held one form of leave that expired before the next was granted;
• Students who spent time in the UK outside lawful immigration status;
• Anyone whose eligibility for a fee waiver or postgraduate loan turns on continuous lawful residence.

For this group, the ruling confirms that the Student Loans Company can refuse funding where the residence record shows a gap, and that such refusals can survive judicial review.

What should applicants take from this?

The practical lesson is preventive rather than curative. Students planning postgraduate study should check their full immigration history for any breaks between periods of leave before they apply for finance. Where a gap exists, the refusal risk is real, and this judgment shows the courts will not readily rescue an otherwise strong academic case.

The decision does not change the rules themselves; it confirms how they are applied. Students with questions about their own residence history should consult official Student Loans Company guidance or a qualified immigration adviser about their specific circumstances.