Featured Article · October 2026
By Ms Verity Marshall
Senior Immigration Consultant | Breytenbachs Immigration Consultants, with editorial oversight from Mr JP Breytenbach, Director
Sponsor licence revocations are running at record levels. According to Home Office figures, 1,545 licences were revoked in the first three months of 2026, and 4,403 in the year to June 2026, the highest annual total yet. For an employer, revocation usually means losing the ability to sponsor overseas staff. It also creates serious uncertainty for the workers already sponsored.
On 4 September 2026 the courts handed down two judgments on the same day that every sponsor should understand. One confirms that the Home Office must treat sponsors fairly before revoking a licence. The other shows that proving the Home Office made a mistake will not always be enough to save a licence.
The High Court: fairness applies even to mandatory grounds
In R (Moon Fish Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 2289 (Admin), the Home Office revoked a licence after finding that a sponsored worker had been paid less than their stated salary. The reduction resulted from a period of legitimate unpaid leave.
The High Court quashed the revocation. It found that the relevant part of the sponsor guidance did not clearly make legitimate unpaid leave, and the lower pay that followed, a mandatory ground for revocation. The sponsor’s failure to report the absence and reduced pay might still engage a discretionary ground.
More importantly for every sponsor, the court held that the Home Office must ordinarily tell a sponsor the gist of the specific concern and give it a reasonable chance to respond before revoking. That applies even where the Home Office believes a mandatory ground is made out, and even where no dishonesty is alleged.
The case is a reminder of a point we made in April: sponsored workers must be paid the required salary in every pay period, and any reduction, including for unpaid leave, must be handled and reported correctly.
The Court of Appeal: an error is not always enough
On the same day, the Court of Appeal dismissed two linked appeals in R (J’s Supermarket Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R (Prestige Social Care Services Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 1147.
J’s Supermarket, a small grocery business, lost its licence after the Home Office found that two sponsored employees’ actual duties did not match the roles described when they were sponsored. The Home Office concluded that the vacancies were not genuine. The court found that the company had been told of these concerns and given a fair opportunity to answer them, so the revocation stood.
Prestige Social Care Services, a care provider, had its licence revoked for several reasons, including concerns about its recruitment practices and high staff turnover. The court agreed that one finding was flawed. The Home Office had relied on a concern about a genuine vacancy that it had earlier withdrawn, without giving the company a further chance to respond. The court also held that a worker’s inability to meet one requirement of a role, in that case being unable to drive, did not on its own show that the vacancy was not genuine.
Even so, Prestige lost. Under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, a court must generally refuse relief where it is highly likely that the outcome would have been the same without the error. The other findings against Prestige were serious enough on their own to justify revocation.
What this means for sponsors
Taken together, the two judgments give sponsors a clear message:
- You are entitled to know the case against you. Before revoking, the Home Office should ordinarily tell you the substance of its concerns and let you respond, including on any concern it revives after previously dropping it.
- Your response matters. Answer every allegation fully, explain any discrepancy and provide evidence. A thin or late reply can decide the outcome.
- One good argument may not be enough. Where the Home Office relies on several grounds, each must be addressed. Winning on one point will not help if the others are strong enough to justify revocation.
- There is no appeal. A revocation can only be challenged by judicial review, which is costly and focuses on whether the decision was lawful, not on the merits.
Prevention is still the best protection
The surest way to protect a licence is to keep it compliant before the Home Office visits. We set out the core monitoring, record keeping, reporting and cooperation duties in our July article, Sponsor Licences, Compliance and Recruitment Risk: What UK Employers Need to Know. These two judgments add one practical lesson: check regularly that each sponsored worker’s actual duties and pay still match what the Home Office was told, and keep records that show it.
Speak to us before the Home Office does
If you hold a sponsor licence, or have received a compliance visit or a letter suspending your licence, our team can review your position, help you prepare a full response, and put systems in place to keep your licence compliant. We cannot promise any outcome, but early advice gives you the best chance of protecting your licence.
Contact your usual BIC adviser, call one of our offices, or email info@bic-immigration.com.
Author and Editorial Oversight
Ms Verity Marshall · Senior Immigration Consultant | Breytenbachs Immigration Consultants. Immigration Advice Authority (IAA) Registered; Bar Vocational Course (graded Very Competent); Graduate Diploma in Law (Commendation); MA (Hons) in English Literature and Theatre Studies. Verity has more than 16 years of experience in UK immigration law. She is known for advice that is detailed yet easy to follow, helping clients understand complex UK immigration rules and make informed decisions to protect their status and rights in the UK.
Mr JP Breytenbach · Solicitor of England and Wales (non practising) | Director, Breytenbachs Immigration Consultants. Mr JP Breytenbach is a Solicitor of England and Wales (non practising) with extensive experience in British nationality and immigration law. He advises multinational employers, high net worth individuals and internationally mobile professionals on complex UK immigration matters, including sponsor compliance, settlement pathways and British citizenship applications under the British Nationality Act 1981.
Hannes Breytenbach · Founder | Breytenbachs Immigration Consultants | Attorney of the High Court of South Africa. Hannes Breytenbach is the founder of Breytenbachs Immigration Consultants and an attorney of the High Court of South Africa. Over several decades, he has developed an international immigration advisory practice assisting individuals, families and multinational organisations with complex cross border immigration strategy and long term immigration planning.
This article is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration law changes frequently and individual circumstances vary. Specific advice should be sought before taking action.
