J's Supermarket Limited, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Procedural fairness in sponsor-licence revocation is context-sensitive. Where the Secretary of State suspects dishonesty or reprehensible conduct, the suspicion must be clearly put to the sponsor, which must have a fair opportunity to respond. A finding that a role is a non-genuine vacancy may be upheld where the evidence shows a material mismatch between the sponsored role and the work actually undertaken, and the sponsor has received that opportunity.

A worker’s inability to perform a genuine role does not itself establish that the vacancy was non-genuine. Serious recruitment failures and evidence of a deficient process may nevertheless independently justify revocation. Under Senior Courts Act 1981, section 31(2A), relief must be refused where it is highly likely that the outcome would not have been substantially different, without the court deciding the merits itself.

J’s Supermarket, a grocery retailer, and Prestige, a care provider, each held a sponsor licence under the Skilled Worker route. The Secretary of State revoked both licences after compliance concerns. J’s Supermarket was said to have sponsored workers for managerial roles while they performed shop-floor duties. Prestige was said to have deficient recruitment practices, high staff turnover, and unsuitable sponsored workers.

The Administrative Court dismissed both judicial-review claims: J’s Supermarket’s claim in [2025] EWHC 68 (Admin) and Prestige’s claim in [2025] EWHC 2860 (Admin). In Prestige’s case, the judge found irrational the conclusion that Ms K’s vacancy was non-genuine, but refused relief under section 31(2A) because alternative grounds under Annex C2 supported revocation.

The appeals concerned procedural fairness, genuine vacancies, the meaning of a threat to immigration control, Annex C2, and the proper application of section 31(2A).

1. The court dismissed both appeals and dismissed the Secretary of State’s Respondent’s Notice. Lord Justice Dingemans gave the sole reasoned judgment, with which Lady Justice Asplin and Lord Justice Peter Jackson agreed.

2. J’s Supermarket had been given procedural fairness. The suspension and revocation letters identified the Certificates of Sponsorship, the duties stated on them, the workers’ accounts of their actual work, and the allegation that the roles had been created to facilitate leave to remain. That clearly identified the conduct alleged. The Secretary of State was entitled to find a stark and material mismatch between purported managerial work and the shop-floor duties actually performed. The revocation under Annex C1(z) of the Home Office sponsor guidance was therefore rational and lawful.

3. In Prestige’s case, the court upheld the finding that Ms K’s inability to drive did not establish that her vacancy was not genuine. It indicated very poor recruitment practice, not that the role did not exist. The Secretary of State could not rely on Annex C1(z), because that ground had been withdrawn in the minded-to-find letter and resurrected in the final decision without fair notice. Section 31(2A) could not cure that distinct procedural unfairness.

4. However, the judge had properly refused relief in relation to Annex C2(a) and (b). The decision letter had identified those provisions as independent bases for revocation. Prestige’s recruitment of a worker unable to drive for a driving role, recruitment of a worker without a reasonable basis to expect that he could meet the English-language requirement, and exceptionally high staff turnover supported the conclusion that its recruitment process failed to comply with sponsor duties. It was highly likely that its licence would have been revoked on those grounds even without the unlawful Annex C1(z) finding.

5. The phrase threat to immigration control in the guidance bears its ordinary meaning. The cumulative recruitment failures and unexplained excessive turnover rationally established both such a threat and serious or systematic failures. The court applied the high statutory threshold in Senior Courts Act 1981, section 31(2A), while stressing that judicial review must not become a merits decision.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Both appeals were dismissed and the Secretary of State’s Respondent’s Notice was dismissed: [2026] EWCA Civ 1147 .
• Administrative Court: J’s Supermarket’s judicial-review claim was dismissed: [2025] EWHC 68 (Admin). Prestige’s claim was dismissed: [2025] EWHC 2860 (Admin) . In Prestige’s case, the judge found an Annex C1(z) error concerning Ms K but refused relief under section 31(2A).