Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Court of Appeal dismissed two sponsor-licence revocation appeals, upholding J’s Supermarket’s revocation and largely sustaining Prestige’s on alternative grounds.
The High Court quashed the revocation of Moon Fish Limited’s sponsor licence, holding that the Home Office misread Annex C1(aa) and acted unfairly.
Permission for judicial review was refused in a challenge to the revocation of Alpine Care UK Ltd’s sponsor licence. The court rejected the procedural fairness ground and said the outcome would not have changed.
Alpine Care UK Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 985 (Admin) (29 April 2026)
Permission for judicial review was refused in a challenge to the revocation of a sponsor licence, the court holding the procedural fairness ground was not arguable.
The High Court upheld revocation of a sponsor licence after finding multiple breaches of sponsor duties, each sufficient on its own to justify revocation.
Southcroft Healthcare Lodge Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 350 (Admin) (18 February 2026)
The High Court dismissed a judicial review challenge to revocation of Southcroft Healthcare Lodge Ltd’s sponsor licence for multiple compliance breaches under the sponsor Guidance.
The claimant's breaches fell within Annex C1(aa) as actual underpayments not permitted by the guidance, with no valid exceptions. The Secretary of State considered and rejected downgrading due to seriousness. Relevant considerations and discretion were properly addressed. No arguable grounds for judicial review exist.
Source excerpt
Geocare Services Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2025] EWHC 3446 (Admin) (11 December 2025)
Permission for judicial review and interim relief were refused after the High Court upheld the immediate revocation of a sponsor licence for salary underpayment breaches.
The Secretary of State’s decision to revoke the Claimant’s sponsor licence was rational, adequately reasoned, and procedurally fair. The Claimant was given clear notice of the allegations, an opportunity to respond, and the Secretary of State considered those responses. The discrepancies between the job descriptions and actual duties justified the conclusion that the vacancies were not genuine. Other alleged breaches and failures, even if individually minor, cumulatively supported revocation. No material procedural unfairness or error of law was established, and even if there were minor flaws…
Source excerpt
Judicial review of a sponsor-licence revocation. The court held Ground (z) was not always limited to dishonesty, but upheld revocation under Annex C2 and refused relief.
Explore more
