Court grants permission to challenge care provider's sponsor licence revocation

The High Court has granted a domiciliary care provider permission to bring judicial review proceedings against the Home Office's decision to revoke its sponsor licence, finding an arguable case that officials failed to properly consider updated salary evidence before concluding sponsored workers had been underpaid.

In R (Daniel's Special Care Limited) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 1979 (Admin), Duncan Atkinson KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, allowed the claimant's renewed application for permission on two of five grounds, having heard the matter on 23 July 2026.

The claimant, an England-based domiciliary care provider, had its sponsor licence suspended in July 2025 following a compliance visit, and subsequently revoked in October 2025. The Home Office identified shortfalls in working hours and pay for three sponsored workers against their Certificates of Sponsorship, alongside concerns about record-keeping and right to work checks.

Permission had initially been refused on the papers by David Pittaway KC in June 2026. On renewal, the claimant advanced grounds alleging material mistakes of fact, breach of the duty of enquiry established in Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside MBC [1977] AC 1014, an unlawful failure to exercise discretion, and an irrational conclusion on salary payments.

The judge rejected the grounds concerning alleged factual errors over the claimant's record-keeping system and passport checks, holding that the Home Office was entitled to reach its own assessment on the material before it and that the court's supervisory role required restraint in such circumstances. The Tameside ground was similarly dismissed, with the judge finding that the claimant had been given adequate opportunity to supply evidence and that the Home Office was not obliged to make further enquiries once a decision had been reached on the information available.

The salary shortfall ground proved more consequential. The claimant relied on R (Treal Care) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 1797, in which the court held that sponsored workers need not be paid their annualised salary in every individual month, provided the required annual rate was met when assessed over a longer period. The claimant argued that the Home Office had failed to properly factor in updated payment information submitted in response to the suspension letter, which it said reduced the apparent shortfalls when calculated on an annualised basis.

The Home Office countered that the claimant had failed to report the shortfall through the Sponsor Management System and had sought to alter the picture through belated payments made after the event.

The judge found it properly arguable that the Home Office had not adequately grappled with the further evidence when determining whether each worker was being paid the required annual rate, consistent with the approach set out in Treal. Having found this ground arguable, the judge held that the related ground concerning the exercise of discretion to revoke also became arguable, since the scope of that discretion depended on the outcome of the salary assessment.

Permission was accordingly granted on the salary shortfall and discretion grounds, while permission on the remaining three grounds was refused. The substantive judicial review will proceed to a full hearing on the surviving issues.