In short

Dr Odelola, a Nigerian doctor, applied in January 2006 for leave to remain as a postgraduate doctor under Immigration Rules that allowed applicants with overseas medical degrees to qualify, subject to other requirements. Before the Home Office decided her application, the rules were radically restructured so that leave required a recognised UK medical degree, which she did not hold.

The Secretary of State refused her application in April 2006 by applying the new rules. She appealed, arguing that the Interpretation Act 1978 preserved a vested right to have her case decided under the rules in force when she applied, rather than those in force on the decision date. She deliberately did not rely on legitimate expectation.

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed her appeal. The court held that the Immigration Rules are statements of executive policy, not subordinate legislation, that they do not confer vested rights on applicants, and that the amended rules applied to her pending application from their commencement date in the absence of transitional provisions.

Decision

Dr Odelola's appeal dismissed. [22]

Issues

Are the Immigration Rules subordinate legislation within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978, so that section 16(1)(c) preserves rights accrued under superseded rules?
No. The Immigration Rules are not delegated or subordinate legislation of the kind to which the 1978 Act applies; authoritative case law consistently treats them as statements of executive practice rather than legislation. [23]
Are the Immigration Rules "rules" that create vested rights in applicants rather than policy statements by the rule-maker for his own guidance?
No. Section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 required a public statement of practice, not rules binding a separate rule-maker on others; the Secretary of State applies the rules he himself has laid down and there is no consistent practice of implied transitional protection. [17]
Do the Immigration Rules have the status of rules of law or delegated legislation?
No. Although immigration judges must apply the current rules on appeal, that obligation enforces consistency with declared executive policy in public law terms and does not convert the rules into delegated legislation. [19]
Did making an application on 17 January 2006 create a vested right to have that application decided according to the Immigration Rules as they stood on that date?
No. Nothing in the Immigration Rules creates such a right; the asserted right had to be constructed from general law and would assume the very proposition the appellant had to prove. [22]
On their proper construction, did the Immigration Rules amended by HC 1016 apply to applications pending on 3 April 2006?
Yes. The new version took effect on 3 April 2006 in all cases because no transitional provisions were included, and the applicant had no vested right that would require a different construction. [26]

Reasoning

A stream of authoritative authority warns against treating the Immigration Rules as delegated legislation, and that consistent analysis is fatal to the appellant's Interpretation Act argument. [14]
The common law rule against retrospectivity applies only to vested rights, so it has no application where the Immigration Rules are treated as changeable executive policy. [27]
Non-statutory rules do not confer a vested right not to be prejudiced by a change of executive policy, and it is for the policy maker to decide whether transitional provisions accompany any change. [28]
The appellant's only recourse to avoid the effect of rule changes would have been legitimate expectation, but that was deliberately not her case. [19]

Written by AI from the judgment on 23 August 2026. Each ¶ links to the paragraph it came from. Read those before relying on it.

▶Statutes Cited11

▶Case Law Cited12

▶Cited By19

Odelola v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 308

[2008] EWCA Civ 308

Case No C5/2007/1156

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE

COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM THE ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL

Mr CMG Ockleton, Deputy President, and members

HR/00295/2006

Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date 10/04/2008

Before

LORD JUSTICE BUXTON

LORD JUSTICE LONGMORE

LORD JUSTICE RICHARDS

Between

MODUPE ABIOLA ODELOLAAppellant

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENTRespondent

(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of

WordWave International Limited

A Merrill Communications Company

190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG

Tel No: 020 7404 1400, Fax No: 020 7831 8838

Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

Mr Richard Drabble QC and Mr Tim Buley (instructed by Duncan Lewis & Co) for Appellant

Mr Sam Grodzinski (instructed by The Solicitor to Her Majesty’s Treasury) for Respondent

Hearing Hearing date : 19 March 2008

Judgment

Lord Justice Buxton :

The facts and the issue

Cited in 19 later judgments

and 10 more of the most senior