by 
A landmark decision from the High Court: R (Moon Fish Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 2289 (Admin)
We are pleased to report the recent judgment of the High Court in R (Moon Fish Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 2289 (Admin), in which Counsel Mansoor Fazli represented Moon Fish Limited in judicial review proceedings concerning the revocation of its sponsor licence.
The case concerned a sponsor whose sponsored worker had taken approximately eight weeks of lawful unpaid compassionate leave. As a result, the worker received approximately £3,560.51 less in salary during the relevant period identified than the salary stated on his Certificate of Sponsorship.
The Home Office subsequently identified the reduced payments and treated the matter as falling within Annex C1(aa) of the sponsor guidance, which provides for mandatory revocation of the licence in circumstances where a sponsor pays a sponsored worker less than the salary stated on their Certificate of Sponsorship.
The sponsor accepted that it had failed to report the worker’s extended absence which fell under Annex C2 a (which is a discretionary ground for revocation). However, it challenged the decision to treat the resulting reduction in payments as engaging the mandatory ground of revocation under Annex C1 (aa).
The High Court quashed the revocation decision.
Procedural Fairness
The Court found that the Secretary of State had acted unfairly by revoking the sponsor licence without first “fairly put[ting] the essential charges” to the sponsor and giving it a reasonable opportunity to respond. This was notwithstanding that the Secretary of State had put the gist of her concerns to the sponsor in general terms.
The judgment therefore provides significant guidance on the scope of the principle of procedural fairness in the context of the sponsor licence regime. The Secretary of State’s argued that the Claimant’s position [if approved by the Court] would represent an expansion of the principle of procedural fairness. The Court, nonetheless, agreed with the Claimant in this respect. This is a particularly significant judgement for many licence holders. A decision to revoke a sponsor licence may have serious consequences for both the sponsor and its sponsored workers.
Interpretation of Annex C1(aa)
The Court also found that the Secretary of State had misdirected herself in treating the lower payments resulting from lawful unpaid leave as falling within the mandatory revocation provision in Annex C1(aa).
The judgment distinguishes between an actual change to a sponsored worker’s salary and a temporary reduction in payments resulting from lawful unpaid leave.
Importantly, the judgment does not remove the obligation on sponsors to report relevant absences. The Court recognised that Moon Fish Limited’s failure to report the absence remained a breach of its sponsor duties. However, that breach did not automatically engage the mandatory revocation ground relied upon by the Secretary of State.
Significance for Sponsors
The judgment provides important guidance on the distinction between:
- a change to a sponsored worker’s salary;
- reduced payments resulting from lawful unpaid leave; and
- a failure to comply with sponsor reporting duties.
It also emphasises the importance of procedural fairness where the Home Office is considering the serious step of revoking a sponsor licence.
For sponsors, the judgment is a reminder that compliance action should be assessed by reference to the precise nature of the alleged breach and the specific provision of the sponsor guidance relied upon by the Secretary of State.
The case also demonstrates the importance of ensuring that sponsors have a fair opportunity to address the substance of the allegations before a decision with potentially significant consequences is made.
Please feel free to read the full judgement on: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2026/2289.html
If you require advice regarding sponsor licence compliance, suspension, revocation, or any Home Office enforcement action, please contact our clerks.
Drafted by: Zara Samia (Paralegal to Mansoor Fazli)
