Prestwick Care Limited, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

When a mandatory ground for revoking a worker sponsorship licence is established, the Secretary of State has no duty to assess the impact of revocation on the sponsor, its workers, service users or the wider community. Impact is a discretionary consideration. A decision to disregard it, or give it no weight, is unlawful only if irrational.

Where revocation rests on suspected dishonesty, procedural fairness requires the Secretary of State to identify that suspicion clearly, give the sponsor a fair opportunity to respond, consider all relevant circumstances and explain any resulting finding. A discrepancy may justify suspicion and a request for an explanation, but cannot alone establish dishonesty.

These conjoined appeals concerned the revocation of skilled-worker sponsorship licences held by care providers. In Prestwick, the Administrative Court dismissed a judicial review claim: [2023] EWHC 3193 (Admin). In Supporting Care, a differently constituted Administrative Court quashed the revocation decision because the Secretary of State had not assessed its wider impact: [2024] EWHC 68 (Admin).

The common issue was whether, after establishing a mandatory ground for revocation, the Secretary of State had to assess the effects on the sponsor, its employees, service users and the wider care sector. Supporting Care also relied on alternative grounds concerning procedural fairness, reasoning, dishonesty and the construction of the sponsorship guidance.

1. Disposition. Prestwick's appeal was dismissed. The Secretary of State established that the Administrative Court had applied the wrong approach to impact in Supporting Care, but the order quashing that revocation decision was upheld because the finding of dishonesty had been reached unfairly.

2. A sponsorship licence is a privilege obtained for commercial advantage, not a right. The scheme depends on a high degree of trust, strict compliance and effective immigration control. Where the Guidance identifies a mandatory ground, the Secretary of State is not required to balance those objectives against the consequences of revocation for the sponsor, workers, service users or the wider community.

3. Applying the classification of considerations in R v Somerset County Council, Ex p Fewings [1995] EWCA Civ 24, as developed in Friends of the Earth [2020] UKSC 52, impact belonged to the discretionary third category. The Secretary of State could consider it and retain a residual discretion, but was not obliged to do so. Omitting it, or giving it no weight, was unlawful only if irrational. Neither decision was irrational on that account.

4. No Tameside duty required the Secretary of State to investigate impact. Nor did the sponsorship context require heightened fairness or enhanced judicial scrutiny beyond the detailed procedure in the Guidance. Paragraph C9.11 gave sponsors an opportunity to advance all mitigating arguments. Those arguments included the broader consequences of revocation.

5. Different requirements applied where revocation rested on dishonesty. Adapting Balajigari [2019] EWCA Civ 673, the Secretary of State had to establish dishonesty on the balance of probabilities. A discrepancy between a certificate of sponsorship and the worker's actual duties could justify suspicion and call for an explanation, but could not alone justify a finding of deliberate exaggeration.

6. The sponsor had to be told clearly of the suspicion of dishonesty and given a fair opportunity to answer it. The Secretary of State then had to consider all the circumstances and give intelligible, though not lengthy or legalistic, reasons for any adverse inference.

7. Supporting Care was not clearly told before revocation that deliberate exaggeration was suspected. The revocation letter did not adequately explain why the discrepancy concerning one employee established dishonesty. That unfairness vitiated the overall decision, notwithstanding the finding of a separate mandatory breach. The quashing order was therefore upheld on alternative grounds.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2025] EWCA Civ 184 , dismissed Prestwick's appeal. It rejected the reasoning on which Supporting Care had succeeded below but upheld the order quashing that revocation decision on procedural-fairness grounds.
2. Administrative Court — Prestwick: In [2023] EWHC 3193 (Admin) , HHJ Kramer, sitting as a High Court judge, dismissed the judicial review claim and held that the Secretary of State had no duty to assess the wider impact of revocation.
3. Administrative Court — Supporting Care: In [2024] EWHC 68 (Admin) , HHJ Siddique, sitting as a High Court judge, quashed the revocation decision because the Secretary of State had not conducted an adequately reasoned global assessment of its impact.