Court of Appeal issues key ruling on sponsor licensing system

Posted: 10/02/2012

The Court of Appeal has given its judgment in the New London College appeal concerning the suspension and revocation of a sponsor licence ([2012] EWCA Civ 51, 02/02/12). The college argued that the system of sponsor licensing is unlawful because it is contained in the UKBA policy guidance, rather than the immigration rules and as a result lacks the necessary authority of Parliament. This argument was subsequently rejected by the court. It held that the judge in the English UK case had correctly identified the law (as set out in the case of Pankina) that Parliamentary authority is needed for the substantive criteria relating to entry and stay in the UK. The rules for sponsor licensing fall outside the substantive criteria for entry and stay and therefore do not need to be in the immigration rules.

The college also argued that the right to a fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights had been breached because there is no independent tribunal to review the merits of the UKBA's decisions to suspend or revoke sponsor licences. The court rejected the argument, holding that judicial review provides an adequate remedy.

The court went on to consider whether the suspension and revocation of the licence had breached the college’s property rights under the Human Rights Convention. The court reviewed the legal authorities touching on the issues and concluded that a key issue was whether the goodwill of the business would be adversely affected by suspension or withdrawal of the licence. As the college had not provided evidence about this, the court upheld the Home Secretary’s case.

The court’s judgment is a resounding endorsement of the English UK case in which Penningtons acted in 2010. In relation to the right to property, the lesson of the New London case is that any arguments run in court (whether about human rights or anything else) must be backed up by the right evidence.

Return to news headlines