Treal Care (UK) Ltd, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

A sponsor-licence revocation decision must be based on an objective construction of the applicable guidance and must adequately explain how the evidence establishes each alleged breach. The Secretary of State must prove the alleged breach on the balance of probabilities and must take material representations into account.

Where an annual salary is specified, compliance need not be assessed by requiring the annualised rate to be achieved in every month. The decision-maker may select a reasonable assessment period, but must account for relevant leave, training and other material facts. A genuine-vacancy finding cannot rationally follow solely from an inadequately established shortfall in hours or pay. The unlawful decision was quashed.

The claimant supplied care staff to public-sector bodies and held a sponsor licence enabling it to issue Certificates of Sponsorship. The Secretary of State revoked the licence after reviewing the pay and working hours of three sponsored employees.

The claimant challenged the decision on irrationality, inadequate reasoning and misinterpretation of the sponsorship guidance. It abandoned a global-assessment ground after the Court of Appeal’s decision in Prestwick Care and Supporting Care v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 184 and did not pursue a proposed procedural-fairness ground.

The issues were whether the alleged salary breaches and lack of genuine vacancies were established on the evidence, whether the decision was adequately reasoned, and whether relief was precluded by Senior Courts Act 1981, section 31(2A).

1. Applicable approach. The Guidance had to be construed objectively. The Secretary of State bore the burden of establishing a breach. The decision-maker had to give adequate reasons, identify the material basis of the decision and consider the claimant’s relevant representations. The principles stated in Prestwick Care and Supporting Care v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 184 applied.
2. Salary assessment. The Guidance and the Certificates of Sponsorship required the employees to be paid the specified annual rate. They did not require that rate to be achieved on every day, week or month. The Secretary of State could select a reasonable shorter assessment period where the employees had not worked for a full year, but had to assess the evidence rationally and take material circumstances into account.
3. Ms Ayeni. The decision-maker failed to account for notified unpaid leave and made a calculation error. The resulting marginal shortfall was therefore irrationally and inadequately reasoned. Even on a monthly assessment, the evidence did not establish a month in which, after considering the relevant evidence, she had been paid below the required rate.
4. Ms Olosinmo. The decision letter did not identify any period in which she had been underpaid. The evidence showed that her annualised pay over the selected period met the required rate. The contrary conclusion was irrational and inadequately reasoned.
5. Ms Lashkar and genuine vacancies. The Secretary of State could treat Ms Lashkar as underpaid because compassionate leave did not qualify for the claimed salary reduction. That did not establish that her vacancy was not genuine. The genuine-vacancy conclusion for all three employees depended on the defective salary analysis and had no rational evidential basis.
6. Section 31(2A). The court rejected the argument that it was highly likely that the outcome would have been substantially the same. The claimant had not committed the acts bringing the case within the mandatory revocation framework, and the court did not need to determine the wider counterfactual argument.
7. Disposition. The decision was unlawful and was quashed. The parties were directed to agree the form of order and consequential matters.