Tendercare Management Limited, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] EWHC 2154 (Admin)
One Trees Estates Limited, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
26 June 2024
[2024] EWHC 1644 (Admin)
High Court
A nursing home lost its licence to hire foreign workers because some workers did jobs different from what their papers said. The nursing home sued, saying the government didn't think about the effects on the workers or the home. The court said the government didn't have to, and the nursing home lost the case. A late government document was also rejected.
Key Facts
- •One Trees Estates Limited (Claimant), a nursing care provider, had its sponsor licence revoked by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Defendant).
- •The revocation was based on the finding that the Claimant had assigned Certificates of Sponsorship (CoS) for roles that did not represent genuine vacancies, as senior care workers were performing duties of carers.
- •The Claimant challenged the revocation decision via judicial review, arguing that the Secretary of State failed to conduct a sufficiently reasoned 'global assessment' of all relevant considerations.
- •The court considered whether the Secretary of State's failure to conduct a 'global assessment' of the impact of revocation on the business, employees, service users, and the wider care sector was a material public law error.
- •The court also addressed a preliminary matter concerning the late submission of a witness statement by the Defendant.
Legal Principles
The Secretary of State has a high degree of trust in sponsors and stringent powers to revoke licences for non-compliance.
R (on the application of St Andrew’s College) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 2496, R (Raj & Knoll) v SSHD [2015] EWHC 1329 (Admin), R (Westech College) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 1484 (Admin)
A policy should not be so rigid as to fetter the decision-maker's discretion.
Lumba v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 12
Where a mandatory ground for revocation is made out, the Secretary of State is not required to consider the impact of revocation on the sponsor's business or wider industry.
R (Prestwick Care Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWHC 3193
The court must refuse relief if the outcome would likely be the same even if the conduct complained of had not occurred.
Section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981
Outcomes
The judicial review claim was dismissed.
The court found that the Secretary of State's decision was lawful. The breach of guidance was serious and fell under mandatory grounds for revocation. There were no exceptional circumstances justifying a different outcome, and even if a 'global assessment' had been conducted, the result would likely have been the same.
The Defendant's late witness statement was not admitted.
The court applied the Denton criteria and found the late service serious, lacked a good explanation, and admitting the evidence would not alter the outcome.
Similar Cases
Supporting Care Limited, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] EWHC 68 (Admin)
Prestwick Care Limited & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWHC 3193 (Admin)
New Hope Care Limited, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] EWHC 1270 (Admin)
SB & Anor, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Newham & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2701 (Admin)