No Duty for Home Office to Consider Impact on Applicants
Leena Chouhan, our Head of Immigration, discusses a key ruling on revoking sponsor licences. The Court of Appeal in Prestwick Care Ltd & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 184 confirmed that the Home Office has no legal duty to assess the wider impact of licence revocation. In fact this even applies sectors such as health and social care.
It’s A Privilege, Not a Right
The central issue was whether the Home Office must consider the effects of revoking sponsor licences on the sponsor’s business, employees, or service users when a mandatory breach is identified. Actually, the Court held that it does not.
In its judgment, the Court made clear that sponsorship is a privilege, not a right. Where a mandatory ground for revocation is established, the Home Office has no discretion to weigh wider consequences. Its focus is the integrity of the immigration system – not the operational implications for the sponsor.
Split High Court Rulings Resolved
The case brought together two previously contrasting High Court decisions. These were Prestwick Care and Supporting Care. The care provider in Prestwick appealed the decision to uphold revocation, while the Home Office appealed the decision to quash the revocation in Supporting Care.
The Court of Appeal backed the Home Office in both cases on the key principle: there is no duty to conduct an impact assessment in mandatory revocation cases. This provides important clarification for sponsors and legal practitioners navigating the risks of compliance failure.
But Fairness Still Matters
While the Home Office succeeded on principle, the Supporting Care outcome still stands. The Court upheld the High Court’s decision to quash the revocation in that case due to procedural unfairness. The Home Office had made a finding of dishonesty without putting the allegations to the sponsor or affected worker beforehand. This was a breach of procedural fairness, particularly where dishonesty is alleged.
What This Means for Sponsors
This judgment has implications where revoking sponsor licences is concerned. It sets a clear precedent: the Home Office is not required to consider the commercial or social impact of revoking a sponsor licence. There is limited scope to argue for discretion in such cases.
However, the decision also reinforces that the Home Office must follow fair process—especially where serious allegations are concerned. Sponsors must maintain robust compliance systems, but they are also entitled to procedural fairness in enforcement actions.