Prestwick Care Limited, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Prestwick Care Limited, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

The Secretary of State is not under a legal obligation to assess the impact of revocation of a sponsor licence on the sponsor, its employees, service users, or the wider community before revoking for mandatory breaches. Impact is a discretionary consideration, not a mandatory one, and the SSHD need not provide reasons for not exercising residual discretion unless a particular reason is raised. Procedural fairness is satisfied by the process in the guidance. However, in SCL’s case, the SSHD’s finding of dishonesty was procedurally unfair as the allegation was not clearly put to the sponsor prior to revocation, vitiating the decision.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Prestwick Care Limited, Malhotra Care Homes Limited, Malhotra Care Homes and (Sunderland) Limited, Trading as Prestwick Care; Claimant/respondent: Supporting Care Limited; Defendant/respondent/appellant: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Prestwick appeal dismissed; SCL appeal allowed in part; revocation decision quashed for SCL on procedural fairness grounds.
Legal Topics
Sponsor Licence Revocation, Procedural Fairness, Material Considerations, Judicial Review Standards, Impact Assessment, Discretionary Powers
Immigration Law Administrative Law Public Law Sponsor Licence Revocation Procedural Fairness Material Considerations Judicial Review Standards Impact Assessment +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prestwick Care Limited, Malhotra Care Homes Limited, Malhotra Care Homes and (Sunderland) Limited, Trading as Prestwick Care

Claimant/appellant

Supporting Care Limited

Claimant/respondent

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant/respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State is under a duty to assess the impact of revocation of a Tier 2 sponsorship licence on the sponsor, its employees, service users, and the wider community
  2. 2 Whether procedural fairness and sufficient inquiry require consideration of impact
  3. 3 Whether the SSHD must provide reasons for not exercising residual discretion in individual cases

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State is not under a legal obligation to assess the impact of revocation of a sponsor licence on the sponsor, its employees, service users, or the wider community before revoking for mandatory breaches. Impact is a discretionary consideration, not a mandatory one, and the SSHD need not provide reasons for not exercising residual discretion unless a particular reason is raised. Procedural fairness is satisfied by the process in the guidance. However, in SCL’s case, the SSHD’s finding of dishonesty was procedurally unfair as the allegation was not clearly put to the sponsor prior to revocation, vitiating the decision.

Court Disposition

Prestwick appeal dismissed; SCL appeal allowed in part; revocation decision quashed for SCL on procedural fairness grounds.

Orders

  • Prestwick Care Limited’s appeal against revocation dismissed.
  • Secretary of State’s appeal in SCL case allowed on global assessment issue.