A series of conflicting case law has brought confusion to the courts when assessing the Home Office's decisions to revoke sponsor licences. The recent case of One Trees Estates Limited further considers whether there is a need for the Home Office to conduct an adequately reasoned global assessment.
Conflicting case law on the need for a global assessment
The first case in this recent series of judgments was Prestwick Care Ltd & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWHC 3193 (Admin), which involved an extensive list of compliance breaches by a large care home operator. The Home Office argued that where there were mandatory grounds to revoke a licence, any wider implications of the revocation were irrelevant.
The court said:
"...the fact that the revocation involves the removal of a benefit previously enjoyed is not relevant as the enforcement procedure involves no fundamental right of the sponsor but one contingent on adherence to the rules;..."
It was not for the Home Office to consider the commercial impact on the business and the effect on local care and health services. Instead, the Home Office are only concerned with ensuring that organisations comply with their sponsor duties.
We then saw the case of R (Supporting Care Ltd) v SSHD [2024] EWHC 68 (Admin), where the Home Office decided to revoke the care home operator's sponsor licence. The primary reason for the revocation was based on findings that a sponsored employee was not carrying out the role as detailed on her certificate of sponsorship, which therefore constituted a compliance breach by the organisation.
The care home challenged the revocation through judicial review and this was successful, with the court finding that the Home Office had failed to conduct an 'adequately reasoned global assessment' of the wider considerations when it decided to revoke the sponsor licence. Such considerations included the impact of the revocation on the other migrant workers, the vulnerable residents under their care, and the likely impact on the wider care services as a result of the revocation. We looked at the case in further detail in our article here.
The case of R (New Hope Care Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 1270 (Admin), which we looked into here, followed suit of the decision in Prestwick Care, and the court found that the Home Office's ability to revoke the licence was not undermined by a need to carry out a global assessment of the impact of the revocation decision.
The facts in One Trees Estates Ltd
With further caselaw backing the decision in Prestwick, the outcome in Supporting Care had become more of an anomaly, and this appears to have been further demonstrated in the most recent case of One Trees Estates Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 1644 (Admin).
The care home operator in this case had its licence revoked after the Home Office found several compliance breaches which amounted to mandatory revocation. Again, this involved sponsored employees who were found to not be carrying out the job listed on their certificate of sponsorship, and as such their role did not represent a genuine vacancy.
The care home argued that the Home Office did not properly engage with the consequences of the revocation decision, in that its sponsored workers were required to find an alternative sponsor or leave the UK within 60 days of notice from the Home Office. Additionally, the revocation decision would interrupt the continuity and quality of care that its vulnerable residents receive and potential financial loss for the organisation.
The care home sought to rely on the decision in Supporting Care, arguing that the Home Office had a duty to assess the wider impacts of the revocation on the sponsored workers and the care home residents. However, the court found that, where there were mandatory grounds for revocation, the Home Office was not required to conduct a global assessment of the impact of the revocation.
Requiring the Home Office to conduct a global assessment over and above the considerations set out in the Guidance, the Judge said that this "would serve to undermine rather than uphold the Secretary of State's primary purpose of maintaining proper immigration control."
The Judge further states that:
"This Court in its supervisory role is required to give due respect to the experience and expertise of the Secretary of State when determining the level and extent of the sponsor's compliance with the Guidance..."
It was held that where the Home Office concludes that the breach of guidance is serious enough to invoke mandatory revocation, there is no reason to exercise residual discretion and conduct further investigations on the impact of the decision.
It was further held that the breach of the sponsor guidance was found to be serious and fell into the mandatory grounds for revocation and there were no exceptional circumstances in this case.
Much needed clarity
With the One Trees Estates outcome aligning with Prestwick Care and New Hope Care, there appears to be agreement in the courts when considering these revocation challenges. It now seems more likely that the Home Office will succeed in their appeal of the Supporting Care decision, as the Court of Appeal may choose to follow the precedent set by Prestwick, New Hope and now, One Trees Estates.
It would, however, be interesting to see what would be considered 'exceptional circumstances', especially with some of the arguments raised by care home operators in the previous cases, such as the impact to the service and quality of care and the impact on sponsored workers.
Increasing Home Office compliance action
There has been an influx of compliance action from the Home Office in the last few years and this is expected to continue, not just in the care sector. Our recent articles look at the rise in UKVI compliance action in further detail as well as common reasons for sponsor licence suspensions.
A sponsor licence suspension or revocation can have a significant impact on an organisation. The rise of compliance action by UKVI underpins the importance of the need to maintain the licence and a need to comply with the sponsor duties, otherwise, sponsors face the risk of losing their licence.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.