SRI Lalithambika Foods Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In a challenge to revocation of a sponsor licence, the court applies ordinary Wednesbury rationality. The decision-maker’s judgment remains primary, and the court’s role is supervisory. Serious commercial consequences do not justify heightened scrutiny.

A sponsor must prove compliance through comprehensive, accurate and clear records and produce them when asked. The decision-maker need not assemble incomplete evidence, identify every evidential gap or provide repeated opportunities to repair an inadequate response. Disputed facts in judicial review will ordinarily be resolved in the decision-maker’s favour absent cross-examination or objective evidence showing error. A single serious breach may justify revocation.

The claimant, a South Indian restaurant, challenged the defendant’s decision to revoke its Tier 2 (General) and Intra-Company Transfer sponsor licence following an unannounced compliance visit. The defendant identified multiple alleged failures concerning sponsored workers’ roles, recruitment records, salary and accommodation evidence, employment contracts, contact details, immigration-status monitoring and attendance records.

The claimant alleged irrationality, procedural unfairness, insufficient evidential support and failure to consider alternatives to revocation. It also sought to rely on late witness statements. The central issues were whether the late evidence should be admitted, whether the defendant’s findings were rational and procedurally fair, and whether the identified breaches lawfully justified revocation.

1. Late evidence. The order extending time for any evidence in reply required all reply evidence to be filed by the specified deadline. Applying the three-stage approach in Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] 1 WLR 3926, the court refused to admit statements served four days late.
2. Standard of review. The court’s role was supervisory and the defendant retained the primary judgment on sponsor compliance and the appropriate response. The applicable test was ordinary Wednesbury rationality. No enhanced scrutiny applied merely because revocation had serious commercial consequences.
3. Evidence and fairness. The decision had to be assessed by reference to the information available when it was made. Later evidence could be relevant to procedural fairness, but it did not retrospectively establish irrationality. In disputed factual matters, the defendant’s evidence prevailed because there was no cross-examination or objective material showing that it could not be correct. The claimant had a sufficient opportunity to answer the concerns. The defendant was not required to request particular documents or give further opportunities to fill evidential gaps.
4. Substantive breaches. The findings that two sponsored workers were not performing the skilled roles specified in their certificates of sponsorship were rationally open to the defendant. A sponsor could not rely on isolated higher-level tasks where the overall role did not match the certificate or relevant SOC description. The claimant also failed to prove compliance with requirements concerning the Resident Labour Market Test, signed contracts, current contact details, visa monitoring and absence records.
5. Disposition. The first three allegations and allegation 5 supplied ample grounds for revocation under Annex 5 of the Guidance. The defendant’s concession concerning allegation 10 did not affect the outcome. Collectively, the remaining findings justified revocation, and there was no duty to consider a lesser measure. The claim was dismissed. Permission to appeal was refused, interim relief was not continued, and costs were ordered in the defendant’s favour, including a £25,000 payment on account under CPR 44.2(8).

First-instance judicial review in the Administrative Court. The claim challenging revocation of the sponsor licence was dismissed. Permission to appeal was refused.