Knowledge and Procedural Fairness in Sponsor Licence Revocations: Tammina & Anor v SSHD [2025] EWCA Civ 24

Introduction

The case of Tammina & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department ([2025] EWCA Civ 24) represents a pivotal moment in immigration law, specifically concerning the procedural fairness afforded to migrants whose sponsoring employers face licence revocations. This Court of Appeal decision scrutinizes whether the refusal of leave to remain based on a revoked sponsor licence constitutes procedural unfairness, particularly when the migrant was aware of the sponsorship issues prior to the decision.

The appellants, Mr. and Mrs. Tammina, contested the refusal of Mr. Tammina's application for leave to remain as a Tier 2 (General) migrant following the revocation of their employer Ratna Marble and Granites' (Ratna) sponsorship licence. The crux of the appeal centered on whether the Home Department's failure to notify Mr. Tammina about the licence revocation seven weeks prior to refusing his application amounted to procedural unfairness.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of UT Judge Blundell, affirming that the SSHD had not acted procedurally unfairly in refusing Mr. Tammina's application. The key distinction from the precedent set in Pathan v SSHD was Mr. Tammina's prior knowledge of the sponsorship issues. Unlike Mr. Pathan, who was unaware of his sponsor's licence problems until the refusal, Mr. Tammina had been informed and had opportunities to mitigate the consequences.

The court found that Mr. Tammina's awareness of the SSHD's concerns about Ratna's licence meant he could have taken steps to address his residency status before the final decision. Consequently, the SSHD was not obliged to provide additional notification beyond what was already known to Mr. Tammina.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

A central element of this judgment was the application and distinction from the Supreme Court decision in R (Pathan) v SSHD [2020] UKSC 41. In the Pathan case, the Supreme Court held that the SSHD acted procedurally unfairly by failing to promptly notify Mr. Pathan of his sponsor’s licence revocation, thereby denying him the opportunity to mitigate the adverse effects on his immigration status.

The Court of Appeal in Tammina extensively analyzed Pathan, ultimately determining that the factual circumstances differed sufficiently to negate the applicability of the procedural fairness claim raised in Pathan. This differentiation underscores the nuanced application of procedural fairness principles based on the specific knowledge and circumstances of the appellant.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning hinged on the principle that procedural fairness is context-dependent. Drawing from the Doody principles, it reaffirmed that fairness demands a flexible, fact-specific approach rather than a rigid application of rules. In assessing whether procedural fairness was breached, the court evaluated Mr. Tammina's awareness and opportunities to respond to the licence revocation.

The appellant's prior knowledge of Ratna's licence suspension, as evidenced by communications and the Consent Order, played a decisive role. This contrasted sharply with Pathan, where the appellant was entirely unaware of the licence issues until the refusal. The court reasoned that Mr. Tammina had had sufficient opportunity to act upon the knowledge he possessed, thereby negating any claim of procedural unfairness.

Furthermore, the court addressed the notion of "complicity" raised by UT Judge Blundell. It clarified that without explicit evidence of conscious wrongdoing by Mr. Tammina in the sponsorship breach, the term "complicit" lacked substantive basis and did not diminish the procedural standards applied.

Impact

This judgment delineates the boundaries of procedural fairness in immigration cases involving sponsor licence revocations. It establishes that awareness and the capacity to respond to licence issues can influence the determination of procedural fairness. Future cases will likely examine the extent of an appellant’s knowledge and the genuine opportunities provided to mitigate adverse immigration decisions.

Additionally, the decision reinforces the importance of context in assessing procedural fairness, signaling that the courts will continue to evaluate such claims on a case-by-case basis rather than through blanket rules. This promotes a more tailored and equitable application of immigration laws, considering the unique circumstances of each appellant.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Procedural Fairness

Procedural fairness refers to the principles of natural justice that ensure an individual is treated justly and given an opportunity to present their case before any adverse decision is made. In immigration contexts, this often involves timely notifications and opportunities to respond to developments that may affect one's residency status.

Sponsor Licence Revocation

Employers who wish to hire foreign workers under certain visa categories must hold a valid sponsor licence. If an employer fails to comply with sponsorship duties, the Home Department may suspend or revoke this licence. Such revocations can directly impact the immigration status of their sponsored employees.

Administrative Review

An administrative review is a process wherein a decision made by an immigration authority can be re-examined internally to ensure it was made correctly and fairly. It serves as a preliminary check before escalating matters to higher tribunals or courts.

Certificate of Sponsorship (COS)

A Certificate of Sponsorship is a crucial document provided by a sponsor (employer) that confirms an individual's employment and supports their visa application. The validity and authenticity of the COS are fundamental to the success of immigration applications under certain visa categories.

Conclusion

The Tammina & Anor v SSHD judgment underscores the nuanced application of procedural fairness in immigration law, particularly in scenarios involving sponsor licence revocations. By distinguishing the facts from the precedent set in Pathan, the Court of Appeal emphasized the significance of an appellant's knowledge and the opportunities available to mitigate adverse decisions. This decision not only reaffirms the contextual nature of procedural fairness but also provides clarity on the responsibilities of both the Home Department and migrants in maintaining transparency and responsiveness during immigration proceedings.

For practitioners and migrants alike, this case serves as a reminder of the critical importance of maintaining informed and proactive communication with sponsoring employers. It also highlights the judiciary's role in ensuring that procedural fairness adapts to the specific circumstances of each case, thereby promoting fairness and justice within the immigration system.