The Court of Appeal has reaffirmed the importance of procedural fairness when the Home Office revokes an employer’s sponsor licence. However, its latest decision also shows that identifying an error will not necessarily be enough to have a revocation overturned.
In R (J’s Supermarket Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R (Prestige Social Care Services Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 1147, handed down on 4 September 2026, the court considered challenges brought by a supermarket and a care provider whose sponsor licences had been revoked.
Both appeals were dismissed. The judgment offers important guidance on how the Home Office should put allegations to sponsors, how genuine vacancies should be assessed, and when a flawed decision may nevertheless stand.
Written by Xinru Jia, Solicitor
Why were the sponsor licences revoked?
The two cases concerned different aspects of sponsor compliance.
For J’s Supermarket, the Home Office identified discrepancies between the roles described in the sponsorship documents and the duties actually performed by two employees. These discrepancies led it to conclude that the sponsored vacancies were not genuine.
Prestige’s case involved concerns about recruitment practices, the suitability of sponsored workers and high staff turnover. The Home Office relied on both a finding that a vacancy was non-genuine and separate failures to comply with sponsorship responsibilities.
The court therefore had to consider two related questions: whether the employers had been given a fair opportunity to respond, and whether the Home Office’s findings justified revocation.
Sponsors must have a fair opportunity to respond
Procedural fairness requires sponsors to understand the substance of the allegations against them and have a meaningful opportunity to answer them before a final decision is made. This is particularly important where the Home Office alleges deliberate wrongdoing.
In J’s Supermarket’s case, the court found that the Home Office had sufficiently identified the discrepancies between the sponsored roles and the employees’ actual duties, as well as its concern that the roles had been created to facilitate immigration permission. The company had been given an opportunity to respond to those concerns.
Prestige’s case illustrated a different problem. The Home Office had withdrawn a concern about whether a vacancy was genuine but later relied on it again without giving the company a further opportunity to respond.
The distinction matters: a sponsor must be able to address the grounds on which the Home Office ultimately relies, including any previously withdrawn allegation that is subsequently revived.
A recruitment failure does not necessarily mean a vacancy is non-genuine
The court also distinguished between the genuineness of a vacancy and the suitability of the person recruited to fill it.
In Prestige’s case, a worker’s inability to drive did not, by itself, rationally establish that the vacancy was non-genuine. A genuine role may exist even where an employer recruits someone who cannot fulfil all of its requirements.
However, that does not make the recruitment failure irrelevant. Inadequate recruitment practices may still support a separate finding that an employer has failed to meet its sponsor duties or lacks the systems needed to comply with them.
Employers must therefore be able to demonstrate both that a sponsored role is genuine and that their recruitment and monitoring processes are effective.
Why did the revocation still stand?
Despite the problems with Prestige’s genuine-vacancy finding, the court dismissed its appeal because other findings independently supported revocation.
Section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 generally requires the court to refuse relief in judicial review proceedings where it is highly likely that the outcome would not have been substantially different without the conduct complained of.
This means that establishing an error and obtaining a remedy are separate questions. A court may identify an unlawful aspect of a decision but still decline to overturn it if the remaining grounds make the same outcome highly likely.
For sponsors considering a challenge, the focus must therefore extend beyond identifying individual errors. It is also necessary to assess whether correcting those errors could materially affect the decision as a whole.
What this means in practice
The judgment highlights the importance of responding fully to a sponsor compliance investigation. Employers should address each allegation, explain any discrepancies clearly and provide supporting evidence. They should also check whether the final decision relies on concerns they were not given a fair opportunity to answer.
Where the Home Office relies on several grounds for revocation, each needs careful consideration. Successfully challenging one finding may not be enough if other grounds remain capable of supporting the decision.
The cases also underline the value of regular compliance reviews. Employers should ensure that workers’ actual duties remain consistent with their sponsored roles and that recruitment, record-keeping and reporting systems work effectively in practice.
There is no statutory right of appeal against sponsor licence revocation. Judicial review may be available, but the prospects of a successful challenge will depend on both the legality of the decision and the significance of any errors identified.
Lisa’s Law works with businesses to apply and maintain sponsor licences, find out more on our Corporate Immigration page here.
Need legal advice? We’re here to help.
If you have questions about your situation or need advice on your next steps, our experienced legal team can help.
Call us on 020 7928 0276 between 9:30am and 6:00pm, or email [email protected].
You can also contact us online by completing our short enquiry form. Tell us a little about your situation and we’ll get back to you as soon as possible.
Not sure which service you need? Get in touch and we’ll help you identify the right team.
