“28. …. the statutory power of the Secretary of State to administer the system of immigration control must necessarily extend to a range of ancillary and incidental administrative powers not expressly spelt out in the Act, including the vetting of sponsors. 29. The Immigration Act does not prescribe the method of immigration control to be adopted. It leaves the Secretary of State to do that, subject to her laying before Parliament any rules that she prescribes as to the practice to be followed for regulating entry into and stay in the United Kingdom. Different methods of immigration control may call for more or less elaborate administrative infrastructure. It cannot have been Parliament’s intention that the Secretary of State should be limited to those methods of immigration control which required no other administrative measures apart from the regulation of entry into or stay in the United Kingdom. If the Secretary of State is entitled (as she plainly is) to prescribe and lay before Parliament rules for the grant of leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom which depend upon the migrant having a suitable sponsor, then she must be also be entitled to take administrative measures for identifying sponsors who are and remain suitable, even if these measures do not themselves fall within section 3(2) of the Act.”
“We have a duty to ensure all sponsors discharge these responsibilities, and we will take compliance action when it is considered that a sponsor has failed to do so, or otherwise poses a risk to immigration control. Part 3: Sponsor duties and compliance contains detailed guidance on your duties as a licensed sponsor and the compliance action we can take if you fail to meet those duties.”
“It is essential that you select the correct occupation code. If you use the wrong occupation code when assigning a CoS or applying for a Skilled Worker Defined CoS, this could lead to an application being delayed or refused. If you have provided false, misleading or otherwise incorrect information about the skill or salary level of the job on a CoS – for example, to enable the worker to score points on the Skilled Worker or GBM routes – we will take compliance action against you. This could include revoking your sponsor licence. For further information, see Part 3: Sponsor duties and compliance.”
“you must … not assign a CoS where there is no genuine vacancy or for a role which does not meet the specific eligibility criteria for the route – if you do, we reserve the right to suspend your licence, pending further investigation, which may result in your licence being revoked.”
“A genuine vacancy is one which: • requires the jobholder to perform the specific duties and responsibilities for the job and meets all of the requirements of the relevant route • does not include dissimilar and/or predominantly lower-skilled duties • is appropriate to the business in light of its business model, business plan and scale.”
“Examples of vacancies that are not considered to be genuine include, but are not limited to: • a role that does not actually exist • one which contains an exaggerated or incorrect job description to deliberately make it appear to meet the requirements of the route when it does not, or is otherwise a sham • a job or role that was created primarily to enable an overseas national to come to, or stay in, the UK ….”
“C9.7. If any of the circumstances listed in Annex C1 arise, we will either revoke your licence immediately or suspend your licence pending further investigation or consideration. C9.8. If any of the circumstances listed in Annex C2 or Annex C3 arise, we will first consider downgrading your licence. However, we may decide to suspend your licence without first downgrading it. This could be where there has been sustained non-compliance over a period of time, or where there have been a number of breaches which are minor in themselves but, taken together, indicate a more serious or systematic failing.”
“C9.9. Where we are satisfied that we have enough evidence to suspend your licence without further investigation, we will write to you giving reasons for the suspension. C9.10. Where we have evidence that justifies your licence being suspended pending a full investigation, we will write to you giving our initial reasons for suspension and telling you that an investigation will take place. It may not be possible to say how long the investigation will take, but we will update you on our progress at regular intervals. During this period, you can make any written statements to respond, including sending evidence. Any statement or evidence will be taken into account during the investigation. C9.11. You have 20 working days from the date of the written notification to respond to our letter. This is your opportunity to seek a review of our decision and to set out any mitigating arguments you believe exist. Your response to us must be in writing and set out, with any relevant supporting evidence, which grounds you believe to be incorrect and why. We may give you more time to respond if we are satisfied there are exceptional circumstances. We will not hold an oral hearing.”
“C10.4. Annex C1 of this document sets out the circumstances in which we will revoke your licence – these are known as ‘mandatory’ grounds of revocation. If any of these circumstances arise, we may revoke your licence immediately and without warning. If we do not revoke your licence immediately, we will suspend your licence pending further investigation. C10.5. Annex C2 of this document sets out the circumstances in which we will normally revoke your licence, unless there are exceptional circumstances. C10.6. We cannot define in which exceptional circumstances we may not revoke your sponsor licence but, when one of the circumstances listed in Annex C2 of this guidance applies, we view this as a serious matter. We will look for evidence you have adequate processes and procedures in place and have taken all reasonable steps to verify information you are required to obtain and hold in connection with your duties under this guidance, as well as any information that you send to us. C10.7. Annex C3 of this document sets out the circumstances in which we may revoke your licence ….”
“The role undertaken by a worker you have sponsored does not match one or both of the following: • the occupation code stated on the CoS you assigned to them • the job description on the CoS you assigned to them.”
“We have reasonable grounds to believe the role for which you have assigned a CoS is not genuine – for example, because it: • does not exist • is a sham (including but not limited to where the CoS contains an exaggerated or incorrect job description to deliberately make it appear to meet the requirements of the route you assigned it under when it does not); or • has been created mainly so the worker can apply for entry clearance or permission to stay.”
“You pay a sponsored worker less than you said you would on the worker’s CoS, and • You have not notified us of the change in salary; or • The reduction is not otherwise permitted by the Immigration Rules or [the Guidance].” • has been created mainly so the worker can apply for entry clearance or permission to stay.” • You have not notified us of the change in salary; or • The reduction is not otherwise permitted by the Immigration Rules or [the Guidance].”
“We will normally cancel (shorten) their permission so they have only 60 calendar days’ left …. the worker will have to leave the UK or face enforced removal if, at the end of the 60 calendar days (or by the time their permission expires if it was not shortened), they have not made an application for permission to stay on a route for which they qualify.”
“There are substantial advantages for sponsors in participating [in the Tier 4 Scheme] but they are not obliged to do so. The Rules contained in the Tier 4 Guidance for determining whether applicants are suitable to be sponsoring institutions, are in reality conditions of participation, and sponsors seeking the advantages of a licence cannot complain if they are required to adhere to them.”
“(1) The essence of the system is that the Secretary of State imposes “a high degree of trust” in sponsors granted (‘Tier 2’ or ‘Tier 4’) licences in implementing and policing immigration policy in respect of migrants to whom it grants Certificate of Sponsorship (“CoS”) or [under the Tier 4 scheme] Confirmation of Acceptance (“CAS”).... (2) The authority to grant a certificate (CoS or CAS) is a privilege which carries great responsibility: the sponsor is expected to carry out its responsibilities “with all the rigour and vigilance of the immigration control authorities” … (3) The Sponsor “must maintain its own records with assiduity” …. (4) The introduction of the Points-Based System has created a system of immigration control in which the emphasis is on “certainty in place of discretion, on detail rather than broad guidance” (per Lord Hope in R (Alvi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2012] UKSC 33 , reported at[2012] 1 WLR 2208 at paragraph 42). (5) The [certificate] is very significant: the possession by a migrant of a requisite CAS [or CoS] provides strong, but not conclusive, evidence of some of the matters which are relevant upon the migrant's application for leave to enter or remain …. (6) There is no need for UKBA to wait until there has been breach of immigration control caused by the acts or omission of a sponsor before suspending or revoking the sponsorship, but it can, and indeed should, take such steps if it has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a breach of immigration control might occur …. (7) The primary judgment about the appropriate response to breaches by licence holders is that of the Secretary of State. The role of the Court is simply supervisory. The Secretary of State is entitled to maintain a fairly high index of suspicion and a ‘light trigger’ in deciding when and with what level of firmness she should act …. (8) The courts should respect the experience and expertise of UKBA when reaching conclusions as to a sponsor's compliance with the Guidance, which is vitally necessary to ensure that there is effective immigration control ….”
“(1) The SSHD has stringent powers to suspend or revoke a sponsor’s licence if the SSHD becomes concerned that a sponsor is not complying with its obligations and must be sensitive to any factors which might suggest the possibility of any breaches of immigration control having occurred or being about to occur because of lapses or omissions committed by a sponsor…. (2) There is a clear need in some circumstances for the SSHD to invoke the SSHD’s powers where there is a risk that the sponsor might not be complying with its duties provided of course that UKBA complies with its public law duties…. (3) The expertise and experience of the SSHD and UKBA in being able to detect the possibility that a sponsor might not be or be at risk of not complying with its duties is something that the court must and does respect because, unlike the SSHD, courts do not have this critically important experience or expertise…. (4) An entity which holds a sponsor licence has substantial duties to ensure that the rules relating to immigration control are adhered to strictly and properly, such that if the SSHD were concerned that a sponsor is not complying with those duties, it would entitle, if not oblige, UKBA to prevent that sponsor from either granting more [certificates] or revoking its licence ….”
“21. It is clear that sponsorship is based on two fundamental principles: (i) Those who benefit most directly from migration, that is to say employers, education providers or other bodies who bring in migrants, must play their part in ensuring that the system is not abused; and (ii) The Home Office needs to be sure that those applying to come to the UK to undertake work or to study are indeed eligible to do so and if a reputable employer or education provider genuinely wishes to take them on. 22. This provides the context for the application of the scheme, and reflects, as was said by McGowan J [at first instance] in London St. Andrew's College v SSHD[2014] EWHC 4328 (Admin) at [13], that the obligation of a sponsor is to carry out its responsibilities "with all the rigour and vigilance of the immigration control authorities". This approach is found throughout the case law ….”
“It is important to bear in mind … that there are in fact three categories of consideration. First, those clearly (whether expressly or impliedly) identified by the statute as considerations to which regard must be had. Second, those clearly identified by the statute as considerations to which regard must not be had. Third, those to which the decision-maker may have regard if in his judgment and discretion he thinks it right to do so. There is, in short, a margin of appreciation within which the decision-maker may decide just what considerations should play a part in his reasoning process.”
“120. It is possible to subdivide the third category of consideration into two types of case. First, a decision-maker may not advert at all to a particular consideration falling within that category. In such a case, unless the consideration is obviously material according to the Wednesbury irrationality test, the decision is not affected by any unlawfulness. Lord Bingham deals with such a case in R (Corner House Research) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2008[ UKHL 60,[2009] 1 AC 756 , at para 40. There is no obligation on a decision-maker to work through every consideration which might conceivably be regarded as potentially relevant to the decision they have to take and positively decide to discount it in the exercise of their discretion. 121. Secondly, a decision-maker may in fact turn their mind to a particular consideration falling within the third category, but decide to give the consideration no weight …. The question again is whether the decision-maker acts rationally in doing so…. This shades into a cognate principle of public law, that in normal circumstances the weight to be given to a particular consideration is a matter for the decision-maker, and this includes that a decision-maker might (subject to the test of rationality) lawfully decide to give a consideration no weight….”
“From them, I derive that (1) where an Act of Parliament confers an administrative power there is a presumption that it will be exercised in a manner which is fair in all the circumstances. (2) The standards of fairness are not immutable. They may change with the passage of time, both in the general and in their application to decisions of a particular type. (3) The principles of fairness are not to be applied by rote identically in every situation. What fairness demands is dependent on the context of the decision, and this is to be taken into account in all its aspects. (4) An essential feature of the context is the statute which creates the discretion, as regards both its language and the shape of the legal and administrative system within which the decision is taken. (5) Fairness will very often require that a person who may be adversely affected by the decision will have an opportunity to make representations on his own behalf either before the decision is taken with a view to producing a favourable result; or after it is taken, with a view to procuring its modification; or both. (6) Since the person affected usually cannot make worthwhile representations without knowing what factors may weigh against his interests fairness will very often require that he is informed of the gist of the case which he has to answer.”
“In my view, the rule is that, before a statutory power is exercised, any person who foreseeably would be significantly detrimentally affected by the exercise should be given the opportunity to make representations in advance, unless (i) the statutory provisions concerned expressly or impliedly provide otherwise or (ii) the circumstances in which the power is to be exercised would render it impossible, impractical or pointless to afford such an opportunity.”
“42. …A discrepancy between the earnings declared to HMRC and to the Home Office may justifiably give rise to a suspicion that it is the result of dishonesty but it does not by itself justify a conclusion to that effect. What it does is to call for an explanation. If an explanation once sought is not forthcoming, or is unconvincing, it may at that point be legitimate for the Secretary of State to infer dishonesty; but even in that case the position is not that there is a legal burden on the applicant to disprove dishonesty. The Secretary of State must simply decide, considering the discrepancy in the light of the explanation (or lack of it), whether he is satisfied that the applicant has been dishonest. 43. ….we consider … that the concept of standard of proof is not inappropriate in the present context. This is because what is being asserted by the Secretary of State is that an applicant for ILR has been dishonest. That is a serious allegation, carrying with it serious consequences. Accordingly, … the Secretary of State must be satisfied that dishonesty has occurred, the standard of proof being the balance of probabilities but bearing in mind the serious nature of the allegation and the serious consequences which follow from such a finding of dishonesty.”
“we have come to the conclusion that where the Secretary of State is minded to refuse ILR on the basis of paragraph 322(5) on the basis of the applicant’s dishonesty, or other reprehensible conduct, he is required as a matter of procedural fairness to indicate clearly to the applicant that he has that suspicion; to give the applicant an opportunity to respond, both as regards the conduct itself and as regards any other reasons relied on as regards “undesirability” and the exercise of the second-stage assessment; and then to take that response into account before drawing the conclusion that there has been such conduct.”
“This leads to the proposition that, unless the circumstances of a particular case make this impracticable, the ability to make representations only after a decision has been taken will usually be insufficient to satisfy the demands of common law procedural fairness. The rationale for this proposition lies in the underlying reasons for having procedural fairness in the first place. It is conducive to better decision-making because it ensures that the decision-maker is fully informed at a point when a decision is still at a formative stage. It also shows respect for the individual whose interests are affected, who will know that they have had the opportunity to influence a decision before it is made. Another rationale is no doubt that, if a decision has already been made, human nature being what it is, the decision-maker may unconsciously and in good faith tend to be defensive over the decision to which he or she has previously come.”
“To give you the opportunity to explain the above issues before we begin revocation action, we have suspended your licence with immediate effect. You have 20 working days from the date of this letter to make representations including, submitting evidence, in response to this letter.”
“95. We always take into consideration the potential impact revocation may have on a sponsor and consideration is always given to re-rating a sponsor licence to allow a sponsor to demonstrate full compliance with their sponsor duties if appropriate. 96. We have considered the possibility of downgrading your licence and issuing you with an action plan. However, we will only downgrade a licence and issue an action plan where there is scope to rectify shortcomings or omissions in systems or retained documents. 97. As already stated, you have acted in contravention Annex C1 (s), (aa), and Annex C2 (a), (b), (q) [the non-mandatory grounds] of the Workers and Temporary Workers: guidance for sponsors part 3. Downgrading your licence is not appropriate due to the seriousness of your non-compliance with your sponsor duties. 98. We believe the issues described above constitute a failure to comply with your sponsor duties. 99. Paragraph C10.4 of the Workers and Temporary Workers: guidance for sponsors part 3 states: Annex C1 of this document sets out the circumstances in which we will revoke your licence – these are known as ‘mandatory’ grounds of revocation. If any of these circumstances arise, we may revoke your licence immediately and without warning. 100. As a result, your sponsor licence has been revoked. There is no right of appeal against this decision.”
“The implication of removal of over 200 staff as a result of revocation of your licence would undoubtedly result in closure of several units and with hospitals currently overflowing; this will have a devastating impact in Gateshead where we would have no place to transfer such clients. As you are aware, these movements are extremely detriment to the welfare and safety of vulnerable clients and can lead to potential loss of life.”
“We are aware of the impact that a sponsor licence revocation can have on a company. However, ultimately, sponsorship involves a pledge from that company that it accepts all of the duties set out by the Home Office in the aforementioned guidance.”
“A revocation of a sponsor’s licence does not result in the immediate termination of their sponsored worker’s leave in the UK. From the date of revocation, sponsored workers are normally provided with a 60-calendar day grace period in which they can seek alternative ways to regulate their stay in the UK - including gaining employment and sponsorship with other sponsors …. Alternate companies with sponsor licences can easily be identified, as the Home Office publishes a register of licensed sponsors online on the gov.uk website…. Since October 2022, the Sponsor Compliance Team have also been actively engaging with the Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) informing upon action taken against sponsors who operate within the Health & Social Care setting. This has allowed DHSC to identify any risks to the disruption of care provided to end service users, by that company. Working alongside DHSC and the Local Authorities, the Home Office has been able to apply discretion in cases, by arranging for visa cancellation action to be paused for a limited period, allowing for continuity of care, until alternative sources of care are arranged. DHSC were made aware of the suspension of Prestwick Care’s sponsor licence on6 December 2022 . No communications regarding Prestwick Care were received from the DHSC or Local Authorities before the revocation decision was made. I am aware of an email titled ‘Staffing Challenges – Gateshead Carehomes’, dated7 February 2023 , and addressed to Prestwick Care from Barry Norman of Gateshead Council. The email confirms the impact of the revocation on Prestwick Care’s Gateshead nursing homes, of which we were already aware of and acknowledge.”
“It is common ground that the common law duty of fairness must be observed by the defendant in the process of investigating and sanctioning the claimant and that the question as to whether a fair procedure has been followed is for the court to decide. It does not defer to the decision of the defendant on this issue. Where the parties differ is that Mr Southey [the applicant’s counsel] argues that in a case such as this fairness requires that the defendant exercise a high standard of procedural fairness because (a) the implications of the decision to revoke are potentially grave to the claimant’s business and the provision of residential care in the areas of its operation, (b) what is in issue is the removal of a benefit that has been enjoyed for a considerable period, (c) there is no appeal against the revocation of a sponsorship licence, with the result that there is no opportunity for a court to correct a factually incorrect decision and (d) it is the sponsor who has to satisfy the defendant that the scheme is and will be properly applied.”
“In the light of these authorities, the four factors put forward by the claimant … do not support a heightened standard of fairness. On the contrary, as was the case in Goldcare, the enforcement procedure set out in the guidance is a fair one given the context.”
“The fact that the revocation involves the removal of a benefit previously enjoyed is not relevant as the enforcement procedure involves no fundamental right of the sponsor but one contingent on adherence to the rules…. The absence of an appeal and the fact that the sponsor has to satisfy the defendant that the scheme is, and will be, properly applied does not assist the claimant’s argument given the precarious nature of the licence as a privilege not a right, one which can be removed where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting a breach, i.e. at a fairly low threshold, where deference is given to the defendant’s substantive decision and the enjoyment of which is based on a high level of trust placed in the sponsor. It would run contradictory to the reason as to why possession of the licence is precarious if the fact that it was imported more rigorous safeguards at the enforcement stage.”
“Mr Southey’s reliance upon the impact of the provision upon local care as a reason for heightened scrutiny is also misplaced. He argued that the defendant must enquire about the impact upon such provision before taking a decision to revoke. He said this is required as a matter of democratic accountability. As he put it, if the Secretary of State wishes to prioritise compliance with immigration controls over the provision of healthcare for the elderly she must come out and say so in order to make the decision subject to democratic accountability. My first observation is that this is a political point and not one that goes to the lawfulness of the decision on revocation. The second is that Mr Magee’s evidence is to the effect that there is a system in place for mitigations, such as pausing the cancellation of visas for a limited period to allow continuity of care so there is no need for the level of scrutiny suggested by Mr Southey in order to safeguard healthcare. The third is that I do not accept, particularly in the light of the available mitigations, that the balance suggested by Mr Southey, immigration control v health care, is one which the defendant is required to undertake. That being the case, there is no requirement on the defendant to make enquiries of such impact in relation to the decision to revoke, albeit that she liaises with the relevant health authority to mitigate the impact.”
“Quite apart from the absence of supportive authority, the essence of the sponsorship system is that the defendant trusts the sponsor to carry out a function which would otherwise be carried out by her department, hence the high level of trust involved. If Mr Southey was correct in his argument, the defendant could be compelled, by the demand for care home places, to continue to trust the claimant to operate the system properly when that trust has gone. The defendant cannot be expected to do so: see Birds Hill Nursing Home & another v SOSHD[2015] EWHC 2241 (Admin) per Nicol J at [44] and St Andrews College per Haddon-Cave LJ at [35].”
“It is to be remembered that the defendant should take steps to suspend or revoke if she has reasonable suspicion of a breach of immigration control, is entitled to maintain a high index of suspicion and a “light trigger” in deciding when and with what level of firmness she should act; see St Andrew’s College at [29 (6) and (7)]. In the light of these principles and the facts as set out above, I cannot conclude that the defendant did not approach the job description issue with an open mind.”
“neither the commercial viability or healthcare provision issues should need addressing because they are not relevant to the central question, namely, can I trust this sponsor to comply with the Guidance?”
“The High Court … must refuse to grant relief on an application for judicial review …if it appears to the court to be highly likely that the outcome for the applicant would not have been substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred.”
“On one view there is no scope for the operation of the section as I have not found any of the pleaded challenges made out. For completeness, however, if the claimant had relied upon the failure to notify the claimant as to the issue it was expected to address in relation to SSP, I would have had no hesitation in reaching the conclusion that the defendant was highly likely to have reached the same conclusion as to revocation.”
“Both Ms Rima and [the other named employee] are employed as senior carers however from their interviews it is clear that they are not undertaking any senior or supervisory duties. Therefore we are not satisfied that the role of senior carer undertaken by Ms Rima and [the other named employee] represent genuine vacancies within your organisation.”
“15. However, regarding Ms Rima, you explained that she has undergone a senior level of training, including PEG feeding training which you state is only relevant to a senior care worker position or higher. You have provided evidence of Ms Rima’s training certificates including her PEG feeding certificate. 16. You have provided a ‘Statement of Facts’ confirming her duties include the following: • Working collectively with the care team to ensure all residents care needs are met • Deliver the physical care appropriate to each resident. • Participate in the keyworker system as directed by the Home Manager • Monitor residents health condition by regularly taking temperatures, BP and weight • Liaise with team managers and carry out care plans for residents • Undertake some administrative duties. 17. However, the only attributable evidence you have provided, to demonstrate the work undertaken by Ms Rima, is a screen shot of a care report showing Ms Rima had prompted a client to take medication. You have provided no evidence to corroborate Ms Rima’s statement that she allocates shifts and rotas nor any examples of the administrative duties she fulfils. It is important to note that the onus is on you and your sponsored workers to substantiate statements with evidence when claims are made. 18. You further state: ‘It is imperative to point out that the interviews were conducted on the basis of incorrect facts around the positions held by the interviewed staff members. If Ms Rima was questioned about her tasks overall, she would have responded with all tasks she carries out as part of her role as a Senior Care Worker. As she was not questioned clearly, an assumption has been made around her job roles and duties.’ 19. Ms Rima was interviewed as a Senior Care Worker under SOC code 6146 as stated on her CoS. Our record shows Ms Rima was asked what position she holds and what she does day to day. She was then given the opportunity to provide additional information and comments at the end of the interview before signing the declaration that the information provided ‘is a full and accurate description of the conditions of employment being undertaken’.”
“you have failed to provide evidence to support your claim that Ms Rima is fulfilling the full range of duties outlined on her CoS. We continue to believe that the role of senior carer undertaken by Ms Rima does not represent a genuine vacancy within your organisation and has been exaggerated in order to facilitate her stay in the UK. Therefore, this issue has not been addressed.”
“79. We believe the issues described above constitute a failure by you to comply with your sponsor duties.80. We always take into consideration the potential impact revocation may have on a sponsor and consideration is always given to re-rating a sponsor licence to allow a sponsor to demonstrate full compliance with their sponsor duties if appropriate.81. We have considered the possibility of downgrading your licence and issuing you with an action plan. However, we will only downgrade a licence and issue an action plan where there is scope to rectify shortcomings or omissions in systems or retained documents.82. As already stated, you have acted in contravention of Annex C1 s) and z) …. Downgrading your licence is not appropriate due to the seriousness of your non-compliance with your sponsor duties.”
“As a result, your sponsor licence has been revoked. There is no right of appeal against this decision.”
“An analysis of the decision letter of26 June 2023 indicates that there is no reference by the Secretary of State to the impact of the decision to revoke the sponsor licence on the Claimant’s 68 migrant workers and families, the vulnerable individuals under their care or to the adverse impact to the Claimant’s services and the wider industry if it becomes unable to fulfil its contracts. Instead, the Secretary of State adopted a holistic approach….”
“The content of the decision letter and indeed the pre-action protocol response from the Secretary of State indicates that the principal, if not only, reason why the licence was revoked was because the policy stated revocation was mandatory in the circumstances. There was no actual or at least demonstrable engagement with any other consideration such as the impact of revocation upon the other 67 migrant workers and their families, the vulnerable individuals under care or to adverse impact to the Claimant and the wider industry. There was similarly no engagement with the question of whether revocation in such circumstances is reasonable and proportionate when a finding in relation to dishonesty related only to the role of a single employee from a workforce of 162 workers, including 68 skilled migrant workers. In those circumstances, I find that on the balance of probabilities the Claimant has demonstrated that the Secretary of State failed to conduct an adequately reasoned global assessment of all relevant considerations in deciding whether to revoke or downgrade the sponsor licence. I therefore allow this fourth ground of judicial review.”
“remedying a breach of duty by one public authority may often require action by another, particularly where the remedy may involve the provision of additional funding.”
“As a matter of principle, although it may be easier in practice to show that Parliament could not have intended the grant of a power in a statute to defeat the very purpose of that same Act, I do not see why a court might not conclude that Parliament could not have intended that a power in one statute be exercised in a way that would utterly defeat the purpose of another statute: although that would be very much dependent upon the circumstances of a particular case, including, most importantly, the wording and even (possibly) timing of the specific statutory provisions. The dearth of examples from the authorities shows just how rare such cases might be, and the caution with which the courts would infer such an intention. Mr Fordham was unable to provide any such examples; but, as a matter of law, such a construction is not impossible and, as statutory schemes and relationships become more complex, it may be that such a construction is more likely to find favour. However, intellectually, it requires the court to conduct the same exercise as that performed in Padfield’s case, namely one of construing the intention of Parliament through the words they have used in the relevant statutory provisions.”
“ ….although the Secretary of State has a residual discretion, … in the absence of a particular reason to exercise it (for a reason that is not already factored into or provided for in the Guidance), there is no obligation to address or provide reasons for not exercising this residual discretion in individual cases. No such reason was provided in the Claimant’s written representations. dated30 June 2023 …. The Secretary of State was required to focus on the impact on the integrity of immigration control and the Sponsorship regime; not the consequences for the Claimant. The revocation decision, and the “global assessment” issue, must be considered in the context of the decision as a whole. The Secretary of State has a responsibility to ensure that registered sponsors comply with the Guidance, and stringent use of its powers is important to its overall effectiveness. Therefore, the Secretary of State, having decided that downgrading the Claimant’s licence as an alternative to revocation would not be appropriate, was not required to assess the impact of revocation on the Claimant's business, employees, service users, and the wider social care sector.”
“Procedural propriety depends on the subject matter of the decisions, the executive functions of the decision-maker and the particular circumstances in which the decision is made (CCSU v Minister for Civil Service[1985] AC 374 ) and also that 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 ….”
“You have 20 working days from the date of the written notification to respond to our letter. This is your opportunity to seek a review of our decision and to set out any mitigating arguments you believe exist. Your response to us must be in writing and set out, with any relevant supporting evidence, which grounds you believe to be incorrect and why.” [Emphasis added]
“from their interviews it is clear that they are not undertaking any senior or supervisory duties. Therefore we are not satisfied that the role of senior carer undertaken by Ms Rima and [the other named employee] represent genuine vacancies within your organisation.”