Raj and Knoll Ltd, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 770 (19 July 2016)

Raj and Knoll Ltd, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 770 (19 July 2016)

The SSHD lawfully revoked the sponsor licence due to demonstrable breaches of sponsor duties, including failure to provide required RLMT evidence and failure to report correct working addresses. Revocation was mandatory under the Guidance, and the SSHD's decision was neither irrational nor procedurally unfair. The court's role is supervisory and the SSHD's expertise and process were respected.

Citation
[2016] EWCA Civ 770
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Raj and Knoll Limited; Respondent/defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sponsor Licence Revocation, Points Based System, Resident Labour Market Test, Judicial Review, Standard of Review
Immigration Law Administrative Law Sponsor Licence Revocation Points Based System Resident Labour Market Test Judicial Review Standard of Review

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raj and Knoll Limited

Appellant/claimant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal, Civil Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State lawfully revoked the sponsor licence under the Points-Based System Guidance
  2. 2 Adequacy of evidence for Resident Labour Market Test compliance
  3. 3 Failure to report change of business address and employee working address

Ratio Decidendi

The SSHD lawfully revoked the sponsor licence due to demonstrable breaches of sponsor duties, including failure to provide required RLMT evidence and failure to report correct working addresses. Revocation was mandatory under the Guidance, and the SSHD's decision was neither irrational nor procedurally unfair. The court's role is supervisory and the SSHD's expertise and process were respected.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Revocation of sponsor licence upheld
  • No right to reapply for sponsor licence for six months from revocation date