Home Link
Back to all articles

Judicial Review – Sponsorship Licence Revocation & Dishonesty: Expanding Prestwick’s Procedural Fairness Framework

Sponsorship Licence Revocation & Dishonesty: Expanding Prestwick’s Procedural Fairness Framework

R (J’S Supermarket Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 1933 (Admin)

Matthew Howarth of Lincoln House Chambers represented the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The claimant was represented by Zane Malik KC of 39 Essex
Chambers

Case Summary and Legal Significance

In a significant development for immigration sponsorship law, Duncan Atkinson KC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) has provided important clarification on the procedural fairness requirements when the Secretary of State alleges dishonesty in sponsor licence revocation cases. The decision builds substantially upon the Court of Appeal’s guidance in Prestwick, establishing key precedents that were not definitively resolved in that earlier judgment.

Factual Background

J’S Supermarket Ltd, a South Asian food supermarket in Tooting, challenged the revocation of its sponsor licence following a compliance visit in May 2024. The company had sponsored three skilled workers: Naveen Chandrasekaran (Retail Manager), Manoj Chandrasekar (Shopkeeper), and Arun Ram Harsha Ramalingam Jayabharathi. Following interviews with two employees, the Secretary of State concluded there were significant discrepancies between their actual duties and those described in their Certificates of Sponsorship, leading to revocation under Annex C1(z) of the Workers and Temporary Workers: Guidance for Sponsors.

Key Legal Developments Beyond Prestwick

1. Sequential Process Approach to Dishonesty Allegations
The decision makes a crucial determination that Prestwick did not explicitly address: what constitutes adequate notice of dishonesty allegations across a multi-stage process. Unlike Prestwick, where the dishonesty allegation appeared to be raised for the first time post-decision, Duncan Atkinson KC found that the Secretary of State’s sequential correspondence (suspension letter in August, revocation letter in October, and reconsideration in November) could cumulatively satisfy procedural fairness requirements.

The judge held that when the Secretary of State stated the roles had been “created in order to facilitate [the employees’] leave to remain in the UK” and specifically referenced Annex C1(z), this provided sufficient notice of the dishonesty allegation, even without explicit use of terms like “deliberate” or “dishonest”.

2. Contextual Assessment of Role Mismatches

Building on Prestwick’s framework, the decision establishes that the degree of mismatch between CoS descriptions and actual roles can itself provide sufficient basis for inferring deliberate exaggeration. The judge distinguished this case from Prestwick’s SCL case, noting that here the disparity was between “skilled managerial position and an unskilled shopfloor role which lacked any significant cross-over with a role that could form the basis for a CoS”. This suggests that more extensive mismatches require less detailed reasoning to support findings of deliberate wrongdoing.

3. Evidence Standards and Burden Clarification

The decision clarifies an important point that Prestwick touched on but did not fully resolve: the distinction between reversing the burden of proof and requiring sponsors to maintain adequate records. Duncan Atkinson KC held that expecting sponsors to produce documentary evidence of their employees’ actual duties does not constitute an improper burden reversal, but rather reflects “the high degree of trust placed in sponsors by the Guidance, and their important responsibilities thereunder”.

4. Section 31(2A) Senior Courts Act Application

Significantly, the judgment provides detailed guidance on when section 31(2A) relief can be withheld in sponsor licence cases, expanding on the principles established in Prestwick. The judge held that where procedural fairness has been achieved through the overall process (even if imperfectly), alternative grounds for revocation (such as Annex C1(s) – role mismatch) can support a section 31(2A) finding. Crucially, the decision establishes that the “outcome” for section 31(2A) purposes is the licence revocation itself, not any specific finding of dishonesty. This represents an important clarification that could affect future challenges.

Practical Implications

For Sponsors –

  • Documentation Requirements: The decision reinforces that sponsors must maintain comprehensive records demonstrating employees perform their CoS duties, going beyond mere witness statements.
  • Response Strategy: When facing revocation proceedings, sponsors should address all aspects of the Secretary of State’s concerns, not just provide explanatory statements.

For the Home Office –

  • Sequential Notice: The decision validates a graduated approach to dishonesty allegations, provided the cumulative effect gives adequate notice.
  • Alternative Grounds: Home Office decision-makers should consider alternative revocation grounds (such as C1(s)) to strengthen their position against both substantive challenge and section 31(2A) applications.

Wider Significance

This decision represents a pragmatic refinement of Prestwick’s principles, recognising that procedural fairness can be achieved through an overall process rather than requiring perfect adherence to rigid formulations. It provides much-needed clarity for both sponsors and the Home Office on evidential standards and procedural requirements in this critical area of immigration law.

The judgment’s approach to section 31(2A) is particularly significant, suggesting that where substantive compliance concerns exist, technical procedural defects may not invalidate revocation decisions. This could influence the Home Office’s approach to future compliance cases and provide greater certainty in sponsor licence enforcement.

The case has been reported widely and can be read on Westlaw – https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/IE1A620806E0811F0B73BF05C54639EAD/View/FullText.html originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&ppcid=a2bf81c474044c57ac2c014c4d6fe8a8&contextData=(sc.History*oc.Search)&comp=wluk&navId =891C7701803A70114EA9565EAE2903D7