The Court of Appeal handed down judgment today (11 March 2025) in a significant judgment relating to the circumstances in which the Home Office can revoke the sponsor licence of a care home that enables them to recruit overseas workers.
The principal issue in the two joined appeals (Prestwick Care v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Secretary of State for the Home Department v Supporting Care Limited) was whether the SSHD is “under a duty to carry out an assessment of the impact of revocation on the sponsor, its employees, service users and the wider community” before revoking a Sponsor licence.
The Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Singh, Lord Justice Baker and Lord Justice Jeremy Baker) accepted the submissions of the Secretary of State, and held that the additional requirements contended for on behalf of the two care homes “have no basis in statute or the Guidance, that their imposition would be contrary to the principles established in case law, including in this Court, and that their imposition would significantly undermine the regime contained in the Guidance”. Lord Justice Baker stated that a sponsor licence is something that some providers seek, for their own advantage, in order to give themselves potential access to an additional labour market, which they perceive as giving them a commercial benefit. They do so, however, “on strict terms contained in the Guidance. When applying for a licence, they know that, if they fail to meet the requirements of the Guidance, the consequences provided for in the Guidance will apply”. They agreed with HHJ Kramer (at first instance in the Prestwick case) that there should be emphasis on “the precarious nature of the licence as a privilege not a right” and the “high level of trust placed in the sponsor”.
In the Prestwick case, the care home’s appeal was dismissed. In Supporting Care, the Court held that “the SSHD has succeeded in establishing that the judge was wrong to allow SCL’s claim for judicial review to succeed on the ground that she had failed to carry out a global assessment of the impact of revocation”. However, in the Supporting Care appeal, the Court upheld the judge’s decision on other grounds, finding that there had been procedural unfairness on the facts of the case by the Secretary of State in concluding that the company deliberately exaggerated an employee’s role in order to facilitate her stay in the UK.
David Manknell KC and Matthew Hill acted on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, instructed by the Government Legal Department.
The judgment is available here.
