Prestige Social Care Services Ltd v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Hearing date: 23 rd September 2025

I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.

HHJ

Introduction

This claim for judicial review challenges the revocation on 15 ^th October 2024 (‘the Decision’) by the Defendant of the Claimant's ‘sponsorship licence’ under the Defendant's ‘Workers and Temporary Workers: Guidance for Sponsors’ guidance.

This ‘Sponsor Guidance’ (as I shall call it) is an adjunct to the Home Office's role in regulating immigration under the Immigration Act 1971 and enables the Home Office to grant (or suspend or revoke) a ‘sponsor’ licence to businesses, authorising them to issue ‘Certificates of Sponsorship’ (‘CoS’) to migrant workers. This assists those workers to get visas and addresses shortages in the labour market. The Sponsor Guidance sets out a list of grounds for revocation by the Home Office in three Annexes. Annex C1 lists grounds under which it will either revoke or suspend a licence without warning. Annex C2 lists grounds under which it will normally revoke unless there are exceptional circumstances. Annex C3 lists grounds under which it may revoke, although it will not generally do so. I shall refer to these as ‘Annex C1 grounds’, ‘Annex C2 grounds’ and Annex C3 grounds'.

In R(Prestwick Care) v SSHD [2025] EWCA Civ 184, the Court of Appeal recently decided that when revoking a sponsorship licence, the Home Office was not under a duty to assess the wider impact of revocation on the community, service users, employees and the sponsor. The present case is one of a run of first instance cases where that ground of challenge has fallen away as a result. However, in one of the linked cases in R(Prestwick), the Court of Appeal also decided the Home Office had acted unlawfully in determining that conduct fell within ‘Annex C1 grounds’ as in effect ‘dishonest’ and had followed an unfair process in reaching that decision.

Whilst the Claimant here pursues three grounds of challenge, its overarching argument is the relevant Annex C1 ground for revocation — that the Claimant had assigned CoS to ‘non-genuine roles’ — requires (the Claimant argues R(Prestwick) decided it required) either dishonesty or other reprehensible conduct. Since it is accepted that was not found here, the Claimant argues the Defendant was not entitled to find ‘non-genuine roles’ from a combination of a high turnover of staff (Ground 1); one worker failing an English test in his visa application (Ground 2); and another unable to drive being allocated a role which required driving (Ground 3). The Defendant argues R(Prestwick) actually decided there is no requirement for dishonesty or reprehensible conduct for a ‘non-genuine role’ under Annex C1. It contends it was entitled to conclude there were ‘non-genuine roles’ by combination of those three factors; or even if it was not, they showed the Claimant had breached its Sponsor duties and so the Defendant was entitled to revoke under Annex C2 which it explicitly did and if necessary, it relies on s.31(2A) Senior Courts Act 1981.

So, this case squarely raises the meaning of ‘genuine role’ and ‘genuine vacancy’ under Annex C1 and Part 3 of the Sponsor Guidance. Different views have been taken at High Court level in England prior to R(Prestwick) whether ‘non-genuine role’ requires dishonesty or other ‘reprehensible conduct’. This case requires consideration of (i) whether R(Prestwick) has now settled that debate; (ii) if not, which view is correct; and accordingly (iii) whether the Defendant was entitled to find there were ‘non-genuine roles’ and revoke the licence either for that, or under Annex C2.

Background

The Claimant company was incorporated in 2012 and provides specialist and technical care to high-needs patients, such as end-of-life care. It has been registered with the Care Quality Commission (‘CQC’) since 2013 and receives referrals primarily through local authorities and NHS Integrated Care Boards in the East Midlands. I stress I do not doubt it provides high-quality care for many vulnerable people in that area. The witness statement for this claim by its Company Secretary Mrs Chipatiko shows how seriously it takes its responsibilities to vulnerable people.

Mrs Chipatko explains the Claimant (like much of the care sector) relies heavily on migrant labour and the Sponsor scheme, as it is difficult to recruit British nationals to care roles which involve such long, strenuous and anti-social hours for relatively low pay. This reflects the wider picture: according to a January 2024 House of Commons report cited by the Claimant, it was chronic under-staffing in the care sector (a 9.9% vacancy rate in 2022/23) which led in February 2022 to the care sector being brought within the Shortage Occupation List on the Defendant's Sponsor Scheme. Since July 2025, no new social care visas are being granted due to concerns about abuse of the Sponsor Scheme, rather than easing of shortages: Major immigration reforms delivered to restore order and control — GOV.UK. There is also considerable staff turnover in the care sector: according to a House of Commons report, the average was 28.3% in 2022/23 (24% for those had worked in care for over 10 years rising to 47.5% turnover for care workers with less than a year's experience).

However, the Claimant's staff turnover rate from 2021 to 2024 was significantly higher than the sector average: at least 40%. It assigned 111 CoS to different workers, but it later told the Defendant it longer sponsored 66 of them. The Claimant says 10 resigned, 14 did not take up posts (including one who had his visa refused I shall call ‘Mr F’); 7 workers were dismissed, 3 workers left the UK and at least 14 went on to work for other sponsors (including one I shall call ‘Ms K’). The balance of 16 workers is not clear. In any event, as the Defendant points out, a 40% turnover rate is itself 40% higher than the sector average and close to average for carers with less than a year's experience, even though some of the Claimant's staff had more.

On 26 ^th March 2024, the Defendant's UK Visas and Immigration (‘UKVI’) department suspended the Claimant's sponsorship licence highlighting its concerns that since August 2021 it had assigned a volume of CoS (111) disproportionate to the profile of the company. It raised concerns for UKVI that some of the vacancies were not genuine and/or that the Claimant was supplying workers to third parties or running an employment agency in breach of the Sponsor Guidance. UKVI required the Claimant within 20 working days to provide evidence it required current levels of recruitment, a current staff list, payroll data, employment and client contracts and ‘evidence of the recruitment process’ for two workers: one being Ms K.

On 24 ^th April 2024, the Claimant's previous solicitors denied the allegations in the suspension letter and specifically suggested that before April 2024, there were only 58 members of staff: the rest had been dismissed, or had switched to other employers, with another 22 set to join in April 2024 until affected by the suspension. The letter (which was re-sent on 10 ^th May 2024 after it was not received) also referred to financial data and a positive CQC inspection which it contended justified the Claimant's recruitment rates.

On 18 ^th June 2024, UKVI responded (‘the Minded to Find’ letter), remaining concerned the Claimant was in breach of the Sponsor Guidance and referring to para C7.26 of it (quoted below), empowering UKVI to suspend or revoke sponsor licences if there was a more serious breach such as ‘a significant or systematic failing’ or if the sponsor ‘poses a serious threat to immigration control’. But notably, the Defendant did not maintain its allegations of non-genuine vacancies, or running an employment agency (both Annex C1 grounds). Instead, it said it believed that various failures ‘constituted a failure to comply with sponsor duties’ (an Annex C2 ground). There were three key points made in the Minded to Find letter:

i. Firstly, it noted the Claimant no longer employed 66 sponsored workers:

“Our records and your representations show over 40% of your sponsored workers are no longer sponsored by your business; a significant number…never began their role. This clearly demonstrates a failure of your recruitment practices. You have regularly identified and sponsored candidates who have been unsuitable for the role, or who had no intention of taking up their position. We believe that a more robust recruitment process, aligned with what is expected of all sponsors and as stated in the guidance for sponsors, would have resulted in a significantly improved worker retention rate.”

ii. Secondly, the Minded to Find letter noted four workers had visa applications refused (though it later transpired it was only one, Mr F). It suggested this breached the Sponsor Guidance (Part 2) S2.3 that a CoS was confirmation from the sponsor (amongst other things) that the sponsor was satisfied that a sponsored worker ‘can meet the relevant immigration requirements’, but:

“It is evident that the four sponsored worker…did not meet the relevant immigration requirements and were therefore refused visas. We consider this to be a failure of your...