Key Facts
- •Prestwick Care Limited (claimant) challenged the revocation of its sponsor license by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (defendant).
- •The revocation was based on multiple alleged breaches of sponsor duties, including providing incorrect job descriptions, underpaying workers, and failing to comply with UK employment law regarding sick pay.
- •The claimant argued procedural unfairness and irrationality in the defendant's decision.
- •The claimant operates 15 care homes employing 857 staff, 219 under the visa sponsorship scheme.
- •The Home Office conducted a compliance visit in October 2022, interviewing staff and reviewing documents.
- •The sponsor license was revoked on February 5, 2023.
Legal Principles
The Secretary of State imposes a high degree of trust in sponsors; sponsorship is a privilege carrying great responsibility.
R (on the application of St Andrew’s College) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 2496
Common law duty of fairness must be observed; the court decides whether fair procedure was followed, not the defendant.
R (on the application of St Andrew’s College) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 2496
The Secretary of State is entitled to maintain a high index of suspicion and a ‘light trigger’ in deciding when to act.
R (on the application of St Andrew’s College) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 2496
Ordinary standards of fairness include informing the claimant of the case, giving a reasonable opportunity to respond, considering representations with an open mind.
Case Law Summary
Section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981: If the court finds for the claimant, but it's highly likely the defendant would have reached the same decision, relief may be refused.
Senior Courts Act 1981
Outcomes
Claim dismissed.
The court found no procedural unfairness or irrationality in the defendant's decision. Multiple breaches of sponsor duties were established, including two mandatory grounds for revocation. Even considering the claimant’s arguments regarding procedural flaws, the court determined it was highly likely the defendant would have reached the same decision.