Background
The Claimant, a domiciliary care provider, held a sponsor licence granted by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (“SSHD”). The licence was suspended in April 2024, revoked on 3 September 2024, returned to suspension in October 2024, and reinstated on 3 April 2025. It was suspended again on 10 October 2025. Following representations dated 6 November 2025, the SSHD revoked the licence by decision dated 21 January 2026, relying on breaches of General Sponsor Duties (“SDs”) 1–4: whether a sponsored senior social worker genuinely filled that role (SD1); whether workers were supplied as labour to other organisations (SD2); whether sponsored workers were properly paid at least at Minimum Wage and as stated in their Certificates of Sponsorship (“COS”) (SD3); and unpaid travel time (SD4). The Decision Letter stated, in respect of each of SDs 1, 2 and 3, that “independent of the other concerns contained in this letter, this issue alone is sufficient to revoke your sponsor licence.”
In response to the letter before claim, the SSHD accepted that the revocation decision was flawed regarding SD2 but maintained her overall conclusions. The Claimant initiated judicial review proceedings. Permission was refused on the papers by Order promulgated 7 August 2026 by Thomas Raphael KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, with detailed reasons. The Claimant renewed the application with Reasons for Reconsideration dated 11 August 2026. Deputy High Court Judge Eleanor Grey KC heard oral submissions on 5 November 2026 and handed down judgment remotely the following day.
The Court’s Holding
The Judge refused permission to apply for judicial review. She accepted that it was arguable (Grounds 1 and 2) that the SSHD acted unfairly or unreasonably regarding SD1 by requiring extensive additional documentary evidence—such as care plan reviews, spot check reports, supervision notes, and medication assessments containing sensitive personal data—beyond the four weeks of staff Time Sheets already provided for the sponsored worker “Ms A,” without specific prior notice that the Time Sheets were insufficient. The Judge noted a qualitative difference between expecting records relating to Ms A’s employment and those relating to assessments of service users and other care workers, and found it arguable that the SSHD should have explicitly addressed the justification for requiring such material before relying on its absence.
However, the Judge found the challenge to SD3 (Ground 4) unarguable. The SSHD had identified substantial and persistent underpayments compared to COS salaries across a significant number of workers, with failures to report reductions. While the Claimant argued at the oral hearing that the SSHD failed to account for reduced hours during the previous licence suspension period, the Judge noted this specific point had not been pleaded in the Grounds or Reasons for Reconsideration. More fundamentally, she was not persuaded that the SSHD overlooked the issue, citing paragraphs 81, 116–123 and 127–131 of the Decision Letter, which specifically addressed the suspension period and found the Claimant had not evidenced that workers were actively seeking alternative sponsorship or that the organisation was legally restricted from assigning shifts. The Judge also noted findings of lower payments in 2023, before the first suspension. She accepted the SSHD’s submission that there was no duty to consider cumulative effects or impacts on care users and staff, and found Grounds 5–6 unarguable.
Applying sections 31(3C) and (3D) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, the Judge concluded it was “highly likely” that the outcome would not have been substantially different even if the breaches of SD1 and SD2 had not been found. She relied on the Decision Letter’s contemporaneous statement that SD3 breaches alone were sufficient to revoke; the substantial and persistent nature of the SD3 failings; additional findings regarding SD4 and other matters; and the principle that sponsorship is a privilege not a right, citing R(Prestwick Care Ltd) v SSHD [2025] EWCA Civ 184 at paras 19–21 regarding the “light trigger” approach and the SSHD’s institutional competence. Permission was refused on this basis, with no order as to costs.
Key Takeaways
- At the permission stage, the test is whether the claim has a realistic prospect of success (arguability), but the court must refuse permission if it is highly likely the outcome would not have been substantially different (Senior Courts Act 1981 s.31(3D)).
- While it may be unfair or unreasonable for the SSHD to demand extensive sensitive documentary evidence beyond provided time sheets without prior notice of insufficiency, such arguable errors may be rendered immaterial by independent, unarguable breaches that alone justify revocation.
- Challenges to factual assessments regarding sponsor compliance must be properly pleaded; new arguments raised orally at renewal hearings that were not in the written grounds face significant obstacles.
- The SSHD’s contemporaneous statement that specific breaches were independently sufficient to revoke provides evidence of what the decision would have been absent other flawed findings.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates the operation of the “highly likely” threshold under s.31(3D) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 at the permission stage, demonstrating that even where a claimant establishes arguable procedural unfairness or unreasonableness regarding one ground, permission may be refused if other unchallenged or unarguable grounds independently justify the decision. It underscores the importance for sponsors of maintaining comprehensive records and for practitioners of ensuring all specific factual arguments are pleaded in written grounds rather than raised for the first time at oral renewal hearings.