The Court of Appeal (CoA) was faced with this exact question and confirmed that the Secretary of State (SSHD) is under no duty to carry out an assessment of the wider impact of a revocation of a sponsor’s licence.
Background:
This appeal involved two care providers, Prestwick Care and Supporting Care Ltd. (SCL). Both had their sponsorship licences revoked for breaches of their duties as sponsors.
Prestwick Care, a ground of three companies operating 15 care homes, lost its 2008 skilled worker sponsor licence in February of 2023 due to compliance issues with the information provided in the Certificate of Sponsorship (CoS) and other breaches of sponsor duties. At least two of the breaches were mandatory grounds for revocation. First, the role undertaken by five workers did not match their job descriptions, and second, the salaries of two workers were not in alignment with the CoS. Prestwick requested a judicial review, which was dismissed. They were granted permission to appeal in September 2024.
SCL, a domiciliary care provider, had its skilled worker sponsor licence suspended in May 2023 due to breaches of guidance, including roles not matching their CoS description. The licence was later revoked in June 2023. SCL requested judicial review, which was allowed on only one ground.
The common question to both appeals was whether the SSHD is required to assess the potential impact of a revocation where mandatory grounds for revocation are established.
Decision:
The CoA noted that “The issue for the SSHD in each of the cases under appeal was the impact on the integrity of immigration control of the company's serious breach of the guidance, not the consequences for the company and others of removing the sponsorship privilege that it had been afforded.” It is also clear that the SSHD has a residual discretion to consider the wider impact but is not required to do so.
In Prestwick’s case, the Court ruled that the SSHD acted lawfully in revoking the licence without assessing the wider impact. The Court reiterated that a sponsor licence is a privilege, not a right, and requires a “high level of trust placed in the sponsor”. The SSHD's main responsibility is to ensure compliance with immigration control, not to assess sector-wide consequences.
Regarding SCL, the CoA upheld the High Court’s decision to quash the revocation due to procedural unfairness. Indeed, it was concluded that the SSHD had drawn an irrational conclusion regarding dishonesty and failed to allow the company or the worker to react to such allegations.
Implications:
This case confirms the importance of complying with sponsor duties. It highlights that mandatory revocation actually means mandatory, and the Secretary of State has no other duties. The judgement is clear that the argument of business impact of any revocation is not available. The decision also reaffirms that sponsorship is a privilege, and any serious breaches of the guidance will lead to revocation.
The judgement also made it clear that SSHD cannot allege dishonesty, only allude to a discrepancy on the certificate without allowing the concerned party to reply to such allegation.
For employers, it is crucial that the job descriptions accurately reflect the roles performed by the sponsored workers, as any failure could lead to a licence revocation, even when the employer was acting in good faith.
