The High Court judgment in R (TJ Trading Express Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 1274 (Admin) serves as a critical reminder of the Home Office’s obligations regarding procedural fairness, even when faced with apparent breaches of sponsor duties. This decision of sponsor licence revocation reinforces the fundamental principle that the privilege of holding a sponsor licence, while demanding strict adherence to regulations, does not extinguish a sponsor’s right to be heard before severe punitive action is taken.
Background to the Challenge
TJ Trading Express Limited, an operator of a petrol station and shop, was granted a Skilled Worker licence on 27 September 2022. The company’s director, as a Level 1 user, was responsible for assigning Certificates of Sponsorship (CoS). On 15 November 2023, a CoS was assigned for the role of “Petrol Station Manager.” Crucially, the director, acting as Level 1 user, both failed to disclose the family link and assigned the CoS to his own brother-in-law, twin breaches of paragraph C1.38 of the sponsor-duties guidance, which forbids a Level 1 user from assigning a CoS to a close relative and requires any such relationship to be recorded in a sponsor note.
On 6 March 2024, the Home Office revoked TJ Trading Express Limited’s sponsor licence without prior notice or an opportunity for the company to make representations. The reasons cited were the undisclosed familial relationship and the Home Office’s belief that the “Petrol Station Manager” role was not a genuine vacancy, having been created solely to facilitate a family member’s immigration status.
The Grounds for Judicial Review
TJ Trading Express Limited launched a judicial review challenge based on two primary grounds:
- Procedural Unfairness: It was contended that the Home Office unlawfully failed to provide the company with an opportunity to respond to the allegations before the sponsor licence revocation. This denial of a fair hearing was argued to be a breach of common law principles and the Home Office’s own internal guidance.
- Flawed Reasoning on “Genuine Vacancy”: The company challenged the Home Office’s conclusion that the role was not genuine, arguing that the decision for sponsor licence revocation lacked adequate reasoning and was potentially unreasonable.
The High Court’s Analysis and Decision on Sponsor Licence Revocation
Mrs. Justice Hill, presiding over the case, meticulously addressed each ground, offering significant clarity on the balance between the Home Office’s enforcement powers and the sponsor’s rights.
- Procedural Fairness: A Cornerstone of Justice
The Home Office argued that its internal policy permitted immediate sponsor licence revocation in cases of serious breaches. However, Mrs. Justice Hill firmly rejected this stance, reaffirming that common law procedural fairness demands an opportunity for representations before a decision like sponsor licence revocation. This principle was underscored by references to established authorities.
The Home Office also contended that the breach (failure to disclose a familial relationship under paragraph C1.38 of the sponsor licence guidance, did not constitute an “allegation of dishonesty,” and therefore, the requirement for an opportunity to respond did not apply. The court disagreed profoundly:
“An allegation that a level 1 user has assigned a CoS to a close relative and failed to make a note of that on the system, as part of a scheme involving a vacancy that was not genuine, is, in my judgment an allegation of “reprehensible conduct”, “bad faith” or “disreputable conduct” even if it is not, or not also, an allegation of dishonesty. It therefore falls within the rule in Balajigari at [55].”
Furthermore, the Home Office’s argument that providing a chance to respond would have been “pointless” given the strength of the evidence was unequivocally dismissed. Mrs. Justice Hill emphasised:
“Third, interpreting “pointless” as meaning “pointless, given the strength of the evidence”, which is the effect of Mr Biggs’ submission, would be inconsistent with the established principles of procedural fairness. As the Court of Appeal reiterated in Prestwick Care at [112], what fairness requires depends on the “character of the decision-making body, the kind of decision it has to make and the statutory or other framework in which it operates”. It does not depend on a unilateral assessment of the strength of the evidence and culpability by the decision-maker before considering any representations from the affected person.”
“Fourth, adopting such an interpretation would create considerable uncertainty as to whether the right to make representations applied in a particular case. That would undermine the public benefits associated with having a “clear and predictable scheme operating according to objective criteria”: EK (Ivory Coast) at [31].”
The court concluded that the failure to allow TJ Trading Express Limited to make representations constituted a fundamental denial of procedural fairness.
- Flawed Reasoning on “Genuine Vacancy”
The Home Office’s assertion that the “Petrol Station Manager” role was not a genuine vacancy was found to be inadequately reasoned. The decision letter failed to demonstrate why the undisclosed familial link automatically led to the conclusion that the job was a sham or created to facilitate immigration.
“The scant reasoning here is similar to that in Supporting Care. There, the decision letter contained nothing to indicate the basis on which the Secretary of State had drawn the adverse inference that the reason for the discrepancy between the worker’s job description and her actual duties was that her role had been deliberately exaggerated to facilitate her stay in this country. Given the seriousness of a finding of dishonesty, more reasoning was required to ensure compliance with the requirements of procedural fairness: [137].”
The lack of concrete evidence and robust analysis to support such a serious finding meant that the Home Office’s reasoning on this ground was also deemed unlawful.
Conclusion and Implications for Sponsors
The High Court quashed the Home Office’s decision to revoke TJ Trading Express Limited’s sponsor licence. This ruling does not exonerate the sponsor from its initial breach of duty, but it critically affirms that even in severe cases, the Home Office must adhere to the principles of procedural fairness and provide adequate reasoning for its decisions.
Key Takeaways for all Sponsor Licence Holders
- Mandatory Disclosure of Family Connections: A sponsor can, in principle, recruit a close family member, provided the CoS is issued by an SMS user who is not related to that worker and the relationship is flagged in a sponsor note (para C1.38). Missing either step constitutes a serious breach.
- Genuine Vacancy is Paramount: Sponsored roles must genuinely exist and meet a legitimate business need. The Home Office scrutinises such roles closely, especially when familial links are involved. Maintain comprehensive records justifying the role and the recruitment process.
- Procedural Fairness is a Right, not a Privilege: While the Home Office possesses broad powers, sponsors have a fundamental right to be heard. If facing allegations of non-compliance, insist on the opportunity to make representations and present mitigating circumstances.
- Timely Legal Advice is Indispensable: Do not await a sponsor licence revocation decision. Proactive compliance mock audits and prompt legal advice from immigration solicitors in the UK, such as City Legal Solicitors, are crucial upon any communication from the Home Office to prevent issues from escalating. Early intervention can often mitigate potential breaches and protect a sponsor licence.
How City Legal Solicitors Can Assist
At City Legal Solicitors, our team of experienced immigration solicitors in the UK have a deep understanding of UK immigration law and sponsor licence compliance. We leverage our insights with an unwavering commitment to safeguarding our clients’ sponsor licences, assisting companies in challenging Home Office decisions, including sponsor licence revocations by:
- Strategic Legal Representation: Providing robust and timely legal representation to the Home Office, articulating the sponsor’s position, and presenting all relevant evidence and mitigating factors.
- Judicial Review Expertise: Initiating and pursuing judicial review claims against unlawful or procedurally unfair Home Office decisions, drawing upon extensive experience in challenging governmental actions.
- Proactive Compliance Mock Audits: Conducting thorough internal mock audits to identify and address potential compliance gaps before they lead to Home Office intervention.
- Guidance on Best Practices: Offering comprehensive advice on sponsor duties, record-keeping, genuine vacancy requirements, and reporting obligations to ensure ongoing adherence to Home Office policy. For this purpose, we are providing our smart sponsor licence compliance portal as a complimentary service for our retainer clients.
Sponsor licence revocation can have devastating consequences for a business. City Legal Solicitors stands ready to guide sponsors through complex challenges, ensuring that their rights are protected and a fair process is upheld.
