Employer guide
Employer guide
No tribunal hears sponsor licence cases. What exists instead is a short ladder: persuade UKVI in writing, correct clear errors, and, at the top, judicial review. Each rung is narrower than the one below it, and every one of them is time limited.
If the licence is suspended rather than revoked, the response to the suspension letter is your best and often only realistic opportunity. It goes to the decision maker, it can address the merits fully, and it can attach the evidence a court would never rehear. Everything on this site about that response lives in the suspension guide. If you are at that stage, start there: a strong response makes the rest of this page academic.
Where a decision rests on a demonstrable factual mistake, the pragmatic first move is often to put the error to UKVI directly and ask it to revisit the decision, sending the documents that prove the point. UKVI is not obliged to engage, and this route is no substitute for protecting the judicial review deadline, but decisions have been reversed where the error was plain and the evidence arrived quickly. It costs days, not months, and a sensible letter before claim makes the same point anyway.
Judicial review asks the High Court to test whether the decision was lawfully made, not whether it was right. The recognised grounds are illegality, procedural unfairness and irrationality: UKVI misapplied its own guidance, failed to put concerns to you before deciding, took into account things it should not have, ignored what it should have, or reached a decision no reasonable decision maker could reach on the material. What the court will not do is substitute its own view of your compliance for UKVI's. A revocation that followed a fair process, correctly applying the guidance to established facts, is very hard to disturb, and the courts allow the Home Office real latitude in this area. The court also decides on the material that was before UKVI when it decided: evidence assembled after the decision cannot, outside narrow categories, be used to re-argue the merits, which is why the evidential window at suspension stage carries the weight it does.
Two timing rules dominate. A claim must be brought promptly, and in any event within three months of the decision. And before issuing, the pre-action protocol for judicial review expects a letter before claim, sent to the correct Home Office address, identifying the decision, the grounds and the remedy sought, with a response normally due within 14 days. The letter before claim is not a formality: it is often where cases settle, because it forces a fresh pair of Home Office eyes onto the file.
Where workers' curtailment or business damage is immediate, interim relief can be sought alongside the claim, asking the court to hold the position while the case is decided. It is discretionary and needs a strong underlying case, so it rewards the claimants who moved fastest.
In R (Moon Fish Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 2289 (Admin) the Administrative Court quashed a revocation. UKVI had asked in general terms for salary records, received them, seen that one worker had been paid less than his certificate stated because he took authorised unpaid compassionate leave, and revoked immediately under the mandatory ground at Annex C1(aa) without saying another word.
The Home Secretary argued that fairness had no place in a voluntary scheme. The court disagreed. Guidance permitting revocation without warning is not the same as revocation without warning being fair, and the duty is not limited to allegations of dishonesty. A sponsor must normally be given the gist of the case against it and a real chance to answer, including a chance to argue that a breach is not serious enough to justify revocation, because a residual discretion not to revoke exists even on a mandatory ground. Putting the allegation in "very abstract terms", asking for documents rather than explanations and identifying no particular underpayment fell short. The court also read C1(aa) narrowly: it catches underpayment resulting from a change in salary, and an unpaid absence is not a change in salary.
What this gives you is a ground worth pleading where the enquiry that preceded revocation was vague, so document the gap between what UKVI asked for and what it decided on at the time. What it does not give you is a licence back: a quashed decision is a reconsideration, and the court noted the same facts could have supported revocation under the discretionary ground at Annex C2(a) for failing to report reduced pay under C1.13. Reporting duties are exactly as stringent as they were.
| Stage | Typical timing | What it requires |
|---|---|---|
| Response to suspension letter | The deadline in the letter, commonly 20 working days | Full evidenced answer to every allegation |
| Error correction request | Days, not weeks | Documents proving the factual mistake |
| Letter before claim | 14 day response window | Decision, grounds, remedy, correctly addressed |
| Judicial review claim | Promptly, within 3 months | Arguable public law grounds and the full paper record |
| Workers' curtailed permission | 60 days, running regardless | A parallel workforce plan from day one |
Nobody can guarantee the outcome of a judicial review, and you should walk away from anyone who does. The cases that succeed tend to share three features: a genuine procedural failing or clear error, a paper record that was strong before the enforcement action started, and a claimant who moved within days rather than weeks. Whether yours is one of them is exactly what a first assessment is for.
Lawyery runs pre-action protocol and judicial review work in sponsor licence cases and will give you a plain view of the grounds, the costs and the odds before you commit to any of them.
Book an urgent consultation