High Court Enforces Sponsors’ Right to Fair Hearing in Licence Revocations
By Leena Chouhan
Introduction
High Court Calls for Fair Hearing Before Licence Revocation. In R (TJ Trading Express Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 1274 (Admin), the High Court decided that the Home Office must give a sponsor a chance to be heard before cancelling its licence. TJ Trading Express, a petrol station operator, lost its Skilled Worker sponsor licence without notice. Although immediate cancellation is possible under guidance, common-law fairness required the company to be heard first.
Background
TJ Trading Express was issued a Skilled Worker licence on 27 September 2022. Mr Jayaganth Ragunathan, its director, held Level 1 access and could allocate certificates of sponsorship (CoS). On 15 November 2023, he allocated a CoS to his brother-in-law, Mr Sivalingam, without detailing their relationship. That omission breached Home Office rules requiring sponsors to declare close relationships.
On 6 March 2024, the Home Office revoked the licence without notice. The revocation letter stated that a CoS was issued to a close relative without disclosure and that the vacancy appeared solely to gain leave for a family member. At that time, the company sponsored three other employees. TJ Trading Express sought judicial review, arguing it never had a chance to advance its case.
Judicial Review
The employer sent a pre-action letter including witness statements and hiring documents. It acknowledged the director’s error but argued the position was genuine. It maintained that—even if guidelines allow summary revocation—fairness required notice and a chance to answer.
The claim relied on New London College v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 856 (Admin) and Balajigari v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 673. Both hold that, even when regulations allow no-notice revocation, fairness might demand a hearing—especially where allegations imply “reprehensible conduct,” even if not strictly dishonest.
The Home Office submitted that it was not required to hold a hearing and that, under the guidance, revocation was justified. The Home Secretary also stated this was not a case of dishonesty under Balajigari, as the business never admitted intent to deceive. She concluded a hearing would have been “pointless” given the strength of the evidence.
Decision
Mrs Justice Hill rejected the Home Office’s position. She held that assigning a CoS to a close relative without disclosure, alongside creating a seemingly artificial vacancy, amounted to “reprehensible conduct” or “bad faith,” though not dishonest:
“An allegation that a Level 1 user has assigned a CoS to a close relative and failed to note that on the system, as part of a scheme involving a vacancy that was not genuine, is … an allegation of ‘reprehensible conduct’, ‘bad faith’ or ‘disreputable conduct’, even if it is not, or not also, an allegation of dishonesty.” (Paragraph 62)
The Home Office’s “pointless” argument also failed. Mrs Justice Hill explained:
“To construe ‘pointless’ to mean ‘pointless, in light of the weight of the evidence’ … would be incompatible with established principles of procedural fairness. … It is not a matter of a unilateral assessment of the strength of the evidence prior to considering any representations from the person who will be affected.” (Paragraph 71)
Following R (New Hope Care Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 1270 (Admin), she held that even express powers to revoke without notice could be limited by common-law fairness.
The court also explained how to handle dishonesty allegations:
“The minimal reasoning here is the same as … Supporting Care. … Due to the seriousness of a finding of dishonesty, further explanation was required to satisfy the requirements of procedural fairness.” (Paragraph 82)
In this case, the revocation letter offered no clear explanation and did not state how the Home Office concluded the vacancy was false. Given the gravity of a dishonesty finding, the court found this inadequate.
Key Takeaways
Right to Be Heard: Even where guidance allows immediate cancellation, fairness can require a hearing.
Detailed Reasoning: Allegations of bad faith or dishonesty require thorough explanations.
No “Pointless” Excuse: A belief that a hearing would make no difference does not override procedural fairness.
Practical Implications
Sponsors facing revocation should gather proof of genuine recruitment, review the Home Office’s Sponsorship guidence for employers, and seek specialist legal advice early. If a licence is revoked without notice or sufficient reasoning, consider judicial review on fairness grounds.
Conclusion
TJ Trading Express confirms that procedural fairness can limit even express powers to revoke without notice. Sponsors must be given an opportunity to respond when serious allegations arise. Decision-makers must provide clear reasoning, particularly when alleging bad faith or dishonesty. Business migration practitioners should study this judgment to protect clients’ rights and ensure fair treatment in licence revocation cases.