Daniel's Special Care Limited, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

For a sponsor-licence revocation under Annex C1(aa) of Part 3 of the Workers and Temporary Workers: guidance for sponsors, the relevant question is whether each worker was paid the required annual rate over an appropriate assessment period. A monthly shortfall is not, by itself, determinative. The decision-maker must consider material evidence capable of altering the annualised calculation and must not require payment of the annualised rate in every month. The SSHD retains a broad discretion and may act on a high index of suspicion, but the scope of that discretion remains arguable where the pay assessment may have been incomplete. Permission was therefore granted on the pay and discretion grounds and refused on the remaining grounds.

The claimant, a domiciliary care provider, sought to renew its application for permission to challenge the SSHD’s revocation of its sponsor licence. The revocation followed a compliance visit concerning alleged shortfalls in workers’ hours and pay, record-keeping failures and right-to-work checks.

Permission had previously been refused by David Pittaway KC on 2 June 2026. The renewed application advanced five grounds, including material mistakes of fact, failure to make further enquiries, failure to exercise discretion and an irrational conclusion concerning salary payments. The central issues were whether the pay evidence raised an arguable challenge under Annex C1(aa) of Part 3 of the Workers and Temporary Workers: guidance for sponsors, and whether that also made the extent of the SSHD’s discretion arguable.

Disposition. On renewal of the permission application, permission was granted only on grounds 4 and 5. Permission on grounds 1–3 was refused. The judgment concerned arguability at the permission stage, not the ultimate merits of the claim.

1. Grounds 1 and 3. The alleged factual errors concerning the Nourish system, passport records and right-to-work monitoring did not make the challenge arguable. The court’s role was supervisory. The SSHD was entitled to maintain a high index of suspicion and a light trigger when assessing sponsor compliance, and the court should respect her experience and expertise.
2. Ground 2. The alleged failure to make further enquiries was unarguable. Applying R (Plantagenet Alliance Ltd) v Secretary of State for Justice [2014] EWHC 1662 (Admin), judicial review should not intervene merely because further enquiries might have been desirable. Intervention required a showing that no reasonable decision-maker could have been satisfied, on the enquiries made, that it possessed the information necessary to decide. The SSHD had considered the material available, including the response to the suspension letter.
3. Ground 4. The pay assessment was the gateway to the mandatory revocation criterion in Annex C1(aa) of Part 3 of the Workers and Temporary Workers: guidance for sponsors. The court applied the guidance in R (Treal Care) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 1797: the question was whether each worker was paid the required annual rate over an appropriate period, not whether the annualised rate was paid in every month. It was arguable that the further pay evidence should have been considered and that the assessment should not have been based on a monthly requirement.
4. Ground 5. The court accepted that the SSHD has a broad discretion to revoke a sponsor licence. However, once the pay ground became arguable, the period selected, the material considered and the extent of any underpayment capable of making revocation inevitable also raised an arguable issue concerning the exercise of that discretion. Permission was therefore granted on grounds 4 and 5.

High Court (Administrative Court). Permission was refused by David Pittaway KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, on 2 June 2026. On renewal, the present court granted permission on grounds 4 and 5 and refused permission on grounds 1–3.