Matthew Howarth: Sponsorship Licences and DCoS Applications in the High Court

In a recent judgment, R (Hartford Care Group Limited) v SSHD [2024] EWHC 3308, the
High Court has quashed a Home Office decision to reject 70 Defined Certificates of
Sponsorship (DCoS) applications from Hartford Care Group Limited, a leading UK care
home provider. Andrew Burns KC was sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge.

The case centered on the Home Office’s requirement for care providers to demonstrate
“genuine vacancies” by producing contracts with local authorities containing guaranteed
hours of work. The Court found this approach to be irrational and unreasonable, as such
contracts do not exist in the care sector.

Key points from the judgment include:

– The Home Office’s evolving practice of requiring guaranteed hours contracts was
deemed irrational and impermissible.

– The Court emphasized that job vacancies can be genuine without such contracts, and
care providers can have legitimate vacancies based on expected demand.

– The decision highlighted the importance of considering a care provider’s business
model and regulatory obligations when assessing vacancy genuineness.

While the Court quashed the original decision and declared it unlawful, it declined to
issue a declaration regarding the application of pre-March 2024 Immigration Rules to
any subsequently issued DCoS.

This ruling may have significant implications for how the Home Office assesses DCoS
applications in the care sector moving forward.

See the case law here.

Matthew Howarth has extensive experience in the High Court litigating Sponsorship Licence revocations. He also advises a number of businesses in the sector, on
compliance with their Duties as Sponsors. In this matter, he was instructed for the
SSHD and Mr Southey KC was for the Claimant.