R Nawaab Restaurant v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Her Honour Judge Moulder |
| Judgment Date | 22 October 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 4230 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/4598/2015 |
| Date | 22 October 2015 |
[2015] EWHC 4230 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Manchester Civil and Family Justice Centre
1 Bridge Street West
Manchester
Greater Manchester
M60 9DJ
Her Honour Judge Moulder
(Sitting as Judge of the High Court)
CO/4598/2015
Miss Barton appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Mr Skinner appeared on behalf of the Defendant
This is an application for urgent interim relief. The applicant, Nawaab Restaurant, seeks an order directing the Secretary of State to restore the sponsor licence of the claimant until the final determination of its judicial review claim.
The decision which the claimant seeks to judicially review is a decision of the defendant dated 15th September 2015, whereby the defendant maintained the revocation of the claimant's sponsor licence.
The claimant company is a chain of some seven Indian restaurants in the UK. A points-based system operates for the immigration of non EEA nationals into the UK and the claimant was granted a sponsor licence under the Tier 2 points-based system in December 2008. In connection with the grant of a licence the defendant has issued guidance for sponsors which must be followed.
In January 2015 compliance officers conducted a compliance visit to one of the restaurants. Officers were not satisfied with the information they were given and asked the claimant to provide further information. A follow-up visit was planned for later that month but that visit did not take place for administrative reasons on the part of the claimant and the further information to be provided at that meeting was not provided. As a result on 4th February 2015 the defendant decided to suspend the claimant's sponsor licence and on the 11th March 2015 the licence was revoked.
Following correspondence with the applicant's previous solicitors the defendant agreed to return the status of the claimant's licence to that of "suspended" rather than "revoked", on the basis that another compliance meeting would take place before a final decision. That visit took place on 3rd June 2015. The claimant was notified that it should have available documents for that visit but although the visit took place the documents requested were not taken. Subsequently the defendant asked for further information to be sent to it by 12.00 noon on 8th June 2015.
There is then a dispute between the parties as to whether or not that information was in fact provided by the deadline. The claimant has provided copies of the e-mail host server whilst the defendant maintains that she did not receive the information by the deadline. Consequently, on 9th July 2015 the defendant decided to revoke the claimant's licence.
The claimant threatened to issue judicial review proceedings. A pre-action protocol letter was sent and following that the defendant agreed to reconsider the decision of 9th July 2015.
The claimant's solicitors supplied material on 4th September 2015. It is clear from reading the 15th September letter that that material was considered by the Secretary of State but the decision to revoke the licence was maintained by the Decision Letter of 15th September 2015.
In this application for interim relief the claimant states that the sponsored workers play a vital role in the smooth running of the business and their absence has created a vacuum which the claimant has been unable to fulfil. The sponsored workers in particular are Mr Khan, who served as office manager, and Mr Sultan, who served as the human resources manager. The claimant describes these individuals as "the backbones" of the business who have served for a number of years. The director of the claimants states in his witness statement:
"We have hundreds of employees who serve thousands of customers every day."
The claimant states that since the revocation of his licence on 9th July 2015 he has promoted employees to take over the positions of the sponsored workers but these workers have not been able to grasp the roles which has led to complaints from customers and is affecting the reputation of the business. The claimant states that he fears the business will face an irreparable loss of its reputation and will lose its regular customer base. The claimant submits that he has an arguable case and there is no threat to immigration control in granting the interim relief in the claimant's case.
Counsel for the claimant submits that the breaches identified in the September 2015 letter are minor breaches and the Secretary of State should have exercised her discretion and chosen to suspend rather than revoke the licence. She referred in particular to paragraph 49 of the letter, at page 34 of the bundle, which states:
"No further evidence which should have been readily available and maintained by your client as part of their sponsor duties will be accepted after a final decision on the sponsor licence has been made. No further reconsideration will be made."
For the defendant counsel submits that the applicant's licence to sponsor non EAA migrant workers was first suspended eight-and-a-half months ago and then revoked entirely in March 2015. Although the decision was reconsidered it was maintained in the September decision and counsel for the defendant therefore submitted that the applicant has not brought the urgent application promptly or provided reasons for any delay. Further, the grounds for the judicial review are on the basis that the decision of the defendant is Wednesbury unreasonable and counsel for the defendant submits that the decision to revoke the licence was made in a fully reasoned decision, after two compliance visits to the restaurant and analysis of the documentation supplied by the claimant.
I remind myself at this point of the law that applies in applications for interim relief in judicial review proceedings. The court...
To continue reading
Request your trial