He Reigns Healthcare Services Ltd, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

A sponsor licence may be revoked because certificates of sponsorship relate to non-genuine vacancies without any finding of dishonesty, deliberate exaggeration or deceit. The procedural safeguards applicable where dishonesty is alleged are therefore not engaged merely because the evidence suggests that sponsored roles do not exist.

The Secretary of State may apply a high index of suspicion and a light trigger when enforcing sponsor duties. The sponsor bears the practical responsibility of keeping accurate records and providing evidence sufficient to address concerns about the genuineness and scale of its recruitment. Judicial review remains supervisory and respects the decision-maker’s expertise.

The claimant, a social-care provider holding a Skilled Worker sponsor licence, challenged the Secretary of State’s decision to revoke that licence. The licence had been suspended after concerns that the claimant had assigned disproportionate numbers of certificates of sponsorship, that some sponsored workers were not occupying genuine vacancies, and that 50 of 124 sponsored workers were absent from the payroll records provided.

The claimant alleged procedural unfairness, failure to consider relevant contracts and evidence, irrationality, and failure to apply safeguards applicable to dishonesty findings. Grounds concerning a supposed duty to make a global assessment had been abandoned following the Court of Appeal’s decision in Prestwick Care Ltd & ors v SSHD [2025] EWCA Civ 184. The issue was whether grounds 1–4 were arguable.

1. Outcome. Permission to bring the judicial-review claim was refused. The claimant’s application was unarguable.
2. Dishonesty. The safeguards identified in Prestwick Care Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 184 apply where the decision rests on an express or implied finding of dishonesty. They require a fair indication of the allegation, an opportunity to respond, consideration of the circumstances, and adequate reasons. They do not apply where the Secretary of State concludes only that certificates were issued for roles that were not genuine.
3. A non-genuine vacancy may result from negligence, ignorance, incompetence or misplaced optimism, without dishonesty. Requiring proof of deceit would allow sponsors to rely on poor record-keeping and would be inconsistent with the responsibilities attached to sponsorship, the requirement to keep records with assiduity, and the light trigger available to the Secretary of State.
4. The Secretary of State was entitled to proceed on the basis that only six contracts had been provided. She was not required to investigate contracts disclosed for the first time during the judicial-review proceedings. The conclusion that 50 of 124 sponsored workers were unaccounted for on the payroll was reasonably open on the evidence.
5. There was no requirement in the Sponsor Guidance or the authorities to interview the claimant’s management or workers. The claimant had a meaningful opportunity to respond to the suspension letter, and the reasons in the revocation letter were legally adequate.
6. The approach was consistent with R (London) St Andrews College v SSHD [2018] EWCA Civ 2496, which recognised the heavy duties imposed on sponsors and the Secretary of State’s entitlement to apply a high index of suspicion and a light trigger.

The judgment states that permission had originally been granted on grounds 5 and 6, but those grounds were abandoned after the Court of Appeal’s decision in Prestwick Care Ltd & ors v SSHD [2025] EWCA Civ 184. The renewed application concerned grounds 1–4. The High Court refused permission.