The High Court’s decision in R (on the application of Jaggi Construction Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 1431 (Admin) highlights the importance of lawful decision-making in sponsor licence cases. The judgment considers whether the Home Office correctly interpreted its Sponsor Guidance and whether it should have made further enquiries before revoking a sponsor licence.
Written by Mahfuz Ahmed, Immigration Supervisor
Background
Jaggi Construction Ltd was granted a sponsor licence in July 2024 and assigned a Certificate of Sponsorship (CoS) to a migrant.
During the visa application interview, the migrant referred to one of the company’s directors as his “aunt”. The Home Office concluded that the CoS had been assigned to a “close relative”, contrary to the Workers and Temporary Workers Guidance, and revoked the company’s sponsor licence with immediate effect.
The company challenged the decision by way of judicial review.
The Key Issue
The case centred on the meaning of “close relative” in the Sponsor Guidance.
Although the guidance includes “aunts” among the prohibited relationships, the director was the migrant’s aunt by marriage rather than by blood. The company argued that the guidance does not expressly include relatives by marriage and that the Home Office had interpreted its policy too broadly.
The Court’s View
The High Court granted permission for the judicial review on the basis that it was arguable that the Home Office had misapplied its own guidance.
The Court noted that, where the Immigration Rules intend to include relationships by marriage, they do so expressly. The absence of similar wording in the Sponsor Guidance raised a genuine question as to whether an aunt by marriage falls within the definition of a “close relative”.
The Court also accepted that it was arguable that the Home Office should have made further enquiries before revoking the licence. Rather than relying solely on the migrant’s description of the director as his aunt, the interviewing officer could have clarified the precise nature of the relationship.
Conclusion
Although this was only a permission for a judicial review decision, it serves as an important reminder that the Home Office must not only enforce sponsor licence compliance but also apply its own guidance correctly and make decisions based on adequate enquiries.
For sponsor licence holders, the case demonstrates that enforcement decisions are capable of challenge where they are based on an incorrect interpretation of the rules or an incomplete understanding of the facts.
This case reinforces that sponsor licence revocation is subject to judicial scrutiny. While businesses must meet their sponsorship obligations, the Home Office must also ensure that its decisions are lawful, fair, and supported by sufficient evidence. Where a licence has been revoked following a potential misinterpretation of the Sponsor Guidance or an inadequate investigation, obtaining specialist legal advice at an early stage can be crucial in protecting both the business and its sponsored workforce.
Have questions? Get in touch today!
Call our office on 020 7928 0276, we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.
Email us on [email protected].
Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/
For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.
