Key Facts
- •Tendercare Management Limited (Claimant) had its sponsor licence revoked by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Defendant).
- •The Claimant operates a care home and supplies carers to other care homes.
- •The revocation was based on concerns about the Claimant acting as an employment agency and inadequate record-keeping.
- •The Claimant challenged the revocation on nine grounds of judicial review.
- •The Claimant's licence was initially suspended, then revoked after a response and further review.
Legal Principles
The sponsor licence regime imposes a high degree of trust on sponsors, requiring rigorous responsibility and vigilant record-keeping.
R (London St Andrew’s College) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 2496
The burden of showing compliance with sponsor duties rests on the licence holder.
Prestwick Care Ltd v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWHC 3193 (Admin)
The court's role is supervisory; it does not re-decide the merits but reviews for errors of law.
R (London St Andrew’s College) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 2496
Guidance on sponsor licences, while titled 'guidance,' can contain mandatory rules.
R (New London College) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] 1 WLR 2358
Mandatory grounds for revocation must be followed unless exceptional circumstances exist.
Workers and Temporary Workers: guidance for sponsors
Outcomes
Judicial review application refused; claim dismissed.
The court found the Defendant's decision to revoke the sponsor licence was lawful. The Claimant failed to demonstrate compliance with the guidance on third-party contracts and record-keeping, including the mandatory requirements for not acting as an employment agency and maintaining adequate records of worker absences.
Grounds 1-7 relating to agency issues and record-keeping rejected.
The court found the Defendant's interpretations of the evidence and application of the guidance to be rational and reasonable. The Claimant failed to meet the evidential burden of proving compliance.
Grounds 8 & 9 relating to discretion issues rejected.
The court held that for mandatory breaches of the guidance, there is no requirement for the Defendant to explicitly address the potential impact of revocation on the Claimant's business. The Defendant's decision was adequately reasoned.