Can the Home Office initiate a Sponsor Licence Revocation for employing a family member without disclosure? Absolutely. But can they do it without giving you a chance to respond? Not so fast.
Sponsoring overseas workers is a privilege, not a right. And if you misuse that privilege, especially to hire a family member without full transparency, the Home Office can shut your business down in an instant.
The High Court’s decision in R (TJ Trading Express Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 1274 (Admin) is a stark warning and a timely reminder. It confirms the gravity of breaching sponsor duties, particularly when employing relatives, but also reinforces that procedural fairness cannot be disregarded even when revocation appears mandatory.
This case delves into the complex balance between Home Office powers and sponsor procedural rights. It’s essential reading for any business holding a sponsor licence or considering sponsorship in the UK.
Background of the Case of Sponsor Licence Revocation
TJ Trading Express Ltd, the sponsor in question, operated a petrol station and held a sponsor licence under the Skilled Worker route. In 2022, the company assigned a Certificate of Sponsorship (CoS) for the “Petrol Station Manager” role to the company director’s brother-in-law, a close family member.
Crucially, the sponsor failed to disclose this familial relationship to the Home Office, which later discovered it during compliance activity. The Home Office concluded that this omission breached the sponsor’s duties of honesty and integrity, particularly under paragraph S5.4 of the sponsor guidance, and revoked the licence without giving the company a chance to respond.
Legal Issues Raised
The sponsor licence revocation decision raised two central issues for the Court to consider:
- Was the sponsor licence lawfully revoked without first giving the sponsor an opportunity to make representations?
- Was the Home Office’s reasoning, especially around the ‘genuine vacancy’ issue, legally adequate?
The Secretary of State relied on paragraph S7.5(a)(ii) of the sponsor guidance, arguing that immediate sponsor licence revocation was permitted because of a serious breach.
The High Court’s Analysis
1. Procedural Fairness: A Fundamental Principle
Mrs Justice Hill made it clear that common law procedural fairness requires the Home Office to allow the sponsor to make representations before sponsor licence revocation, even in cases where the breach appears to be ‘mandatory’. The judge found that the Home Office’s internal policy on ‘sponsor non-compliance’ acknowledged that a decision-maker must consider whether a breach is so serious that immediate revocation is justified.
The failure to give TJ Trading Express Ltd a chance to explain its position, particularly the context of the familial relationship and the justification for the job role, amounted to a denial of procedural fairness, which, in turn, rendered the decision unlawful.
2. Flawed Reasoning on the “Genuine Vacancy” Issue
The Home Office had asserted that the role in question was not a genuine vacancy, suggesting it was created primarily to assist the brother-in-law’s immigration, rather than meet a real business need.
However, the Court criticised the Home Office’s reasoning as “inadequate” and “inherently improbable”, given the longstanding nature of the role and lack of concrete evidence to the contrary. Mrs Justice Hill stated that such a serious finding required proper analysis and evidence, not just assertion.
Final Judgment
The Court quashed the sponsor licence revocation decision, ruling that the Home Office had acted unlawfully by failing to afford the sponsor an opportunity to make representations and by failing to provide sufficient reasoning for its conclusions on the genuineness of the vacancy.
However, the judgment did not exonerate the sponsor of wrongdoing. The undisclosed family link remained a serious breach, and the sponsor’s conduct fell short of expectations. But the core principle established was that even in the face of serious breaches, sponsors have a right to procedural fairness.
What Does This Mean for Sponsors?
This decision carries important compliance and procedural implications for all sponsor licence holders:
- Disclose All Family Connections: Sponsoring family members is not prohibited, but non-disclosure is a serious breach. Always declare relationships proactively.
- Genuine Roles Only: Ensure the job roles sponsored meet the criteria of a genuine vacancy and are needed for your business—not created for convenience.
- Document Everything: Keep records that clearly justify the need for the role and show the recruitment process.
- Procedural Fairness Is Not Automatic: The Home Office must allow you to respond—but only if you demand it or legally challenge any denial. Do not rely on this as a shield.
- Legal Advice Early on Is Crucial: Don’t wait until your licence is revoked. A compliance audit and ongoing advice can prevent errors before they happen.
How Farani Taylor Can Help in Sponsor Licence Revocation
At Farani Taylor Solicitors, we specialise in navigating the complexities of sponsor licence compliance and defence. Whether you’re sponsoring a relative, managing recruitment procedures, or facing sponsor licence revocation, we provide tailored legal guidance grounded in up-to-date Home Office policy and case law. Our team ensures your documentation and disclosures meet the highest standards of integrity, and if the Home Office challenges your licence, we’ll stand firmly in your corner, making strong legal representations and judicially reviewing unfair decisions where needed. With Farani Taylor, your sponsorship compliance is in safe hands.
This article is authored by Sajjad Hussain, Solicitor in our Immigration department. Reach him at +44 207 242 1666.