Prestwick Care Limited & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWHC 3193 (Admin)
Supporting Care Limited, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
19 January 2024
[2024] EWHC 68 (Admin)
High Court
A care company's licence to hire foreign workers was revoked because one worker's job didn't match what was promised. A judge said the government should have considered how this would affect the company and all the other workers before just revoking the licence.
Key Facts
- •Supporting Care Limited's (Claimant) Tier 2 sponsor licence was revoked on 26 June 2023 by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Defendant).
- •The revocation was based on alleged breaches of sponsor duties, specifically concerning one employee, Ms Rima.
- •The alleged breaches involved Ms Rima's duties not matching her Certificate of Sponsorship (CoS) job description and her role not representing a genuine vacancy.
- •The revocation impacted 68 migrant workers who risked losing their UK status.
- •The Claimant argued procedural unfairness in interviews, flawed reasoning, misinterpretation of guidance, and a failure to conduct a global assessment of relevant factors.
Legal Principles
Procedural fairness requires that serious allegations, especially those of dishonesty, be brought to the attention of the affected party in advance of interviews.
Balajigari v SSHD [2019] EWCA Civ 673; Bank Mellat v HM Treasury [2013] UKSC 39; Mushtaq v ECO [2015] UKUT 224 (IAC); Anjum v ECO [2017] UKUT 406 (IAC)
A decision-maker must ask the correct question and make reasoned findings on material issues. Findings of dishonesty require a careful consideration of whether failings were deliberate, and the burden of proof remains on the decision-maker.
Balajigari v SSHD [2019] EWCA Civ 673; Shahbaz Khan [2018] UKUT 384 (IAC); Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd [2017] UKSC 67
Policy statements should be interpreted objectively in accordance with the language used, read in its proper context. A severe measure like licence revocation requires a proportionate response to the discrepancies between a worker's role and their CoS.
Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council [2012] UKSC 13; Mandalia v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 59
While policies may mandate revocation in certain circumstances, public law principles require a proper exercise of discretion, considering the wider impact of the decision, including proportionality.
Mandalia v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 59; R (Raj and Knoll Limited) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWHC 1329 (Admin); R (Raj and Knoll Limited) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 770; R(Operation Holdings Ltd) v Secretary of State for The Home Department [2019] EWHC 3884 (Admin); Balajigari v SSHD
Outcomes
Ground 1 (procedural unfairness) dismissed.
Allegations of dishonesty arose after the interviews, and the Claimant had ample opportunity to provide evidence before the final decision.
Ground 2 (failure to ask the correct question/make reasoned findings) dismissed.
The decision letter demonstrated a finding of deliberate exaggeration amounting to dishonesty, supported by evidence and the Claimant's insufficient response.
Ground 3 (misconstruction of guidance/irrational conclusion) dismissed.
The Secretary of State's assessment of the discrepancies between Ms Rima's duties and her CoS was not irrational, given the qualitative significance of the unfulfilled duties.
Ground 4 (failure to conduct a global assessment) allowed.
The Secretary of State failed to adequately consider the wider impact of revocation on the migrant workers, vulnerable individuals, and the Claimant's operations. The decision lacked sufficient reasoning beyond the mandatory revocation policy.
Similar Cases
One Trees Estates Limited, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] EWHC 1644 (Admin)
Tendercare Management Limited, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] EWHC 2154 (Admin)
New Hope Care Limited, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] EWHC 1270 (Admin)
Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen & Ors, R v The Secretary of State for Business and Trade
[2023] EWHC 1781 (Admin)