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

Permission for judicial review of a sponsor-licence revocation requires an arguable ground with a realistic prospect of success warranting oral investigation. Procedural fairness requires fair notice of the decision-maker’s concerns and a fair opportunity to respond, but does not require the decision-maker to identify every document that may be relevant. The decision is assessed by reference to the material available when it was made. A challenge must also fail where Senior Courts Act 1981, section 31(2A), requires relief to be refused because the outcome would highly likely have been substantially the same. A Sponsor Action Plan is not required for breaches falling outside the category of relatively minor issues.

Alpine Care UK Ltd sought renewed permission to challenge the Secretary of State’s decision to revoke its sponsor licence following a compliance visit and identified breaches of sponsorship duties and guidance. Permission had previously been refused on the papers, with interim relief continuing pending reconsideration. At the renewed hearing, the claimant abandoned all grounds except procedural fairness. It argued that the Secretary of State had relied on material beyond the documents requested, had failed properly to assess its evidence, and should have allowed a Sponsor Action Plan.

The central issue was whether those arguments disclosed an arguable claim with a realistic prospect of success.

1. Permission refused. The procedural-fairness ground did not have a realistic prospect of success.
2. The suspension letter required the claimant to respond to all the concerns identified. The request for specified supporting documents did not limit the evidence or representations that could properly be submitted. The Secretary of State was required to give fair notice of the concerns and a fair opportunity to respond, but was not required to specify every document that should be produced. That requirement was satisfied.
3. The revocation decision considered the claimant’s representations and evidence point by point. The claimant therefore had no arguable basis for asserting that its evidence had not been properly assessed.
4. Procedural fairness was assessed by reference to the representations and evidence available before the decision was made. Later evidence could not sensibly establish that the decision was procedurally unfair when made.
5. In any event, the claimant accepted that each identified breach, individually or in combination, justified revocation. Section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 consequently required relief to be refused because it was highly likely that the outcome would not have been substantially different.
6. The remaining pleaded points were not arguable. Under paragraph C7.25 of Part 3 of the Guidance, a Sponsor Action Plan concerned breaches amounting to a relatively minor issue; it was not required here. The contention that revocation was impermissibly treated as other than a last resort was also misconceived, since one revocation ground was mandatory and the others fell within the category where the Secretary of State would normally revoke.

The interim stay therefore fell away.

First-instance renewed application for permission after HHJ Rawlings refused permission on the papers and continued interim relief pending reconsideration. The renewed application was refused by the High Court.