Rajasekhar Tammina & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Procedural fairness is context-sensitive, but whether a procedure was fair is a hard-edged question of law for an appellate court. A duty to notify a migrant promptly of sponsor-licence revocation may arise where the migrant is unaware of the problem and timely notice would allow the application to be varied or the consequences mitigated. The duty does not arise on identical terms where the migrant knows that the sponsor’s licence is at risk, understands that the application depends on its status, and can take steps to protect their position. An allegation that an applicant was complicit implies knowing involvement in wrongdoing. It should be made explicitly and fairly put, although that issue was unnecessary to the result.

Mr Tammina applied for further leave to remain as a Tier 2 (General) migrant, relying on a certificate of sponsorship from Ratna Marble and Granites. While the application was pending, the Secretary of State suspended and then revoked Ratna’s sponsor licence. Mr Tammina was aware of the suspension and had discussed it with Ratna, but was not notified of the revocation before his application was refused on 8 February 2018. His wife’s dependent application stood or fell with his.

The Upper Tribunal set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision for failure to consider an argument based on historical injustice, reheard that issue, and dismissed the appeals. Permission to appeal was granted on whether the case was indistinguishable from R (Pathan) v SSHD [2020] UKSC 41. The central question was whether the absence of notification constituted procedural unfairness.

1. Disposition. The appeals were dismissed. The Upper Tribunal was right to conclude that the Secretary of State had no duty, on these facts, promptly to notify Mr Tammina that Ratna’s sponsor licence had been revoked.
2. Appellate approach. The requirements of procedural fairness depend on statutory and factual context. The court accepted the contextual principles identified in the dicta of Lord Mustill in R v SSHD, ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531. Contextual assessment does not make procedural fairness a discretionary matter subject to review only for irrationality. Whether the procedure followed was fair or unfair is a hard-edged question of law, and an appellate court must decide whether the tribunal was right or wrong.
3. Pathan. In R (Pathan) v SSHD [2020] UKSC 41, prompt notification was required because the migrant was unaware that the sponsor’s licence was in difficulty and notice would have provided an opportunity to vary the application or mitigate the consequences of refusal. The fairness principle was not confined to an opportunity to make representations. The statutory context included the automatic continuation of leave under section 3 C of the Immigration Act 1971 while an in-time application and relevant review or appeal rights were pending.
4. Distinguishing features. Mr Tammina knew that Ratna’s licence had been suspended, had discussed that issue with Ratna, and knew from the Consent Order that the sponsor’s status was relevant to the reconsideration of his application. He therefore knew for several months that the certificate of sponsorship was in doubt. He could maintain contact with Ratna, seek alternative sponsorship, or otherwise take steps to protect his position. Those features materially distinguished Pathan and were sufficient to establish that the absence of prompt notification was not procedurally unfair.
5. Complicity. The Upper Tribunal was not justified in treating Mr Tammina as complicit. The term generally connotes knowing involvement in wrongdoing. Revocation or refusal may instead rest on matters such as the skill level of the role or whether there was a genuine vacancy. Any allegation of conscious wrongdoing should be made explicitly and fairly put to the applicant. There was no such allegation or factual finding here, but this did not affect the outcome because the first two distinguishing features were sufficient.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [2025] EWCA Civ 24: dismissed the appeals, holding that the absence of prompt notification of the sponsor-licence revocation was not procedurally unfair.
2. Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): UT Judge Blundell set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision on 7 July 2023 because it had not considered the historical-injustice argument. On 11 September 2023, after rehearing that issue, the Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeals.
3. First-tier Tribunal: its decision was set aside on the historical-injustice issue, while the other factual findings were retained.