Prestwick Care v Secretary of State for the Home Department ([2025] EWCA Civ 991): Court of Appeal Clarifies Jurisdiction to Hear Appeals from Paper Refusals of Interim Relief and Re-affirms the “Robust Balance of Convenience” Test

1. Introduction

Prestwick Care & Ors applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal a High Court order that refused interim relief. The underlying dispute concerns the Home Office’s revocation of Prestwick’s Sponsor Licence—which permits it to employ overseas care-home workers—and the subsequent refusal to extend an “informal agreement” that had paused any immigration decisions affecting Prestwick’s remaining 44 visa-dependent employees.

Although the substantive judicial-review claim (JR4) has not yet been granted permission, Prestwick sought an injunction to prevent the Secretary of State from deciding employees’ immigration applications until permission is determined. Deputy High Court Judge David Pittaway KC refused that injunction on 21 March 2025. Prestwick then attempted to leapfrog directly to the Court of Appeal, raising two headline points:

1. The High Court had erred in its application of American Cyanamid v Ethicon as adapted for public-law cases; and
2. The Administrative Court’s decision was infected by irrelevant or ignored material considerations.

The Court of Appeal (single judge) dismissed the application, addressing both (a) whether it possessed jurisdiction to entertain an appeal before any oral renewal in the High Court, and (b) whether the High Court’s merits assessment was “wrong” within the meaning of CPR 52.11. The judgment therefore sets two notable markers:

(i) The Court of Appeal does have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a refusal of interim relief made on the papers, even if the claimant skipped the usual oral renewal; but this is a matter of discretion and practice, not jurisdictional vires.
(ii) On the facts, no arguable error warranted interference; the stringent “balance of convenience / risk of injustice” approach—underpinned by the need for a “strong prima facie case” in public-law interim injunctions—was correctly applied.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Jurisdiction confirmed: Relying on s.16(1) Senior Courts Act 1981 and prior Court of Appeal authority (MD (Afghanistan)), the court held that jurisdiction was present; whether the appeal should be entertained is discretionary.
• Interim relief refused (again): The Deputy Judge’s decision contained no error of law or irrationality. Even if the same balance were re-struck, the Court of Appeal stated it would have reached the same conclusion.
• Public interest decisive: The lawful revocation occurred in February 2023; allowing further delay to enforcement would undermine the integrity of the sponsorship regime, outweighing hardships to Prestwick or its residents.
• Application to adduce fresh evidence rejected: A second witness statement (Mardon 2) was considered de bene esse but did not affect the outcome; the Ladd v Marshall gateway (now CPR 52.21 (2)(b)) was not satisfied.
• Permission to appeal dismissed.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. American Cyanamid v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396 – foundational test for interim relief; in public-law cases it is “adapted” to emphasise strength of case and public interest.
2. R (Detention Action) v SSHD [2020] EWHC 732 (Admin) – example of the Cyanamid modification in public-law context.
3. R (X) v Ofsted [2020] EWCA Civ 594 – Lindblom LJ’s articulation that, although “strong prima facie case” is not a formal gateway, it is usually a significant factor; and the Court of Appeal’s limited review function at §80.
4. R (Public and Commercial Services Union) v SSHD [2022] EWCA Civ 840 – compiled principles on interim relief and on appellate deference (per Underhill LJ).
5. Frank Industries v Nike Retail BV [2018] EWCA Civ 497 – Lewison LJ’s guidance that an appeal on interim relief scrutinises “wrongness”, not substitution of discretion.
6. MD (Afghanistan) v SSHD [2012] EWCA Civ 194 – differentiation between jurisdiction and practice regarding appeals before oral renewal.
7. Nolson v Stevenage BC [2020] EWCA Civ 379 – interaction with CPR 3.3 / 23.8 on paper determinations; used for completeness on jurisdiction debate.
8. Abela v Baadarani [2013] 1 WLR 2043 and R (AR) v Chief Constable GMP [2018] UKSC 47 – Supreme Court statements on appellate review of evaluative judgments; cited by Prestwick but distinguished.
9. Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489 – classical test for admitting new evidence on appeal; now reflected in CPR 52.21.

By knitting these authorities together, the Court underscored two themes: (a) deference to first-instance evaluative discretion, and (b) the elevated threshold for interim relief where public regulatory regimes are at stake.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Step 1 – Jurisdiction vs. Practice • s.16 SCA 1981 supplies jurisdiction to hear “any judgement or order” of the High Court. • In MD (Afghanistan), the Court of Appeal said the normal “practice” is to require an oral renewal first, but that is flexible. • Here, both parties accepted jurisdiction; the Court nonetheless acknowledged new April 2025 CPR amendments but left them undecided.
2. Step 2 – Applicable Interim Relief Framework • The Deputy Judge used American Cyanamid as adjusted by Detention Action. • Key limbs examined: – serious issue / arguable case (held: none) – adequacy of damages (care residents; but outweighed) – balance of convenience / justice (public interest in sponsor-licence enforcement prevailed). • The Court of Appeal reiterated that underlying case strength is highly influential in public-law injunctions but not framed as a “threshold.”
3. Step 3 – Appellate Standard of Review • CPR 52.11(3): appeal allowed only if the decision was “wrong” or “unjust because of procedural or other irregularity”. • Following Frank Industries and X, the Court asked whether the Deputy Judge’s conclusion was irrational, legally erroneous, or unsupported. • None of Prestwick’s criticisms (failure to consider certain factors, reliance on irrelevant factors) established such wrongness.
4. Step 4 – Public Interest and Temporal Context • Licence revoked in Feb 2023; two years had elapsed. • “Humane” grace period measured in weeks, not years. • Prestwick had reduced visa-dependent staff from 219 to 44—showing capacity to adjust. • Immigration control and sponsorship integrity demanded the revocation now take practical effect.

3.3 Potential Impact on Future Litigation and Policy

• Tactical Roadmap Limited: Claimants who lose interim-relief applications on the papers will usually be expected to renew orally in the High Court; although jurisdiction exists, the Court of Appeal will treat such short-circuiting with caution.
• Higher Hurdle for Care-Sector Sponsors: Care-home operators challenging revocation must now reckon with the Court’s statement that mitigation periods “ought to be measured in days or perhaps weeks.”
• Public-law Injunctions Generally: The judgment cements the idea that a strong prima-facie case is not a formal gateway but is practically indispensable whenever the public interest in regulatory enforcement is weighty.
• CPR Practice & April 2025 Amendments: Although not resolved, the judgment flags forthcoming arguments about CPR 3.3 / 23.8 post-amendment interactions, likely to surface soon.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Interim Relief

An urgent, temporary remedy (often an injunction) granted before the court finally decides a case. Purpose: hold the “ring” and avoid irreversible harm.

American Cyanamid Test

Classic four-stage checklist for interim injunctions: (1) serious question to be tried; (2) adequacy of damages; (3) balance of convenience; (4) preservation of status quo. Public-law cases further integrate public-interest considerations and expect a stronger merits showing.

Sponsor Licence

Home Office approval allowing UK employers to issue Certificates of Sponsorship to non-UK workers. Revocation ends lawful employment relationships and prompts curtailment of employees’ visas unless they find alternative sponsorship.

Permission for Judicial Review

The gateway stage where the Administrative Court decides whether a public-law claim is arguable and should proceed to a full hearing.

Section 16 Senior Courts Act 1981

The statutory source of the Court of Appeal’s civil jurisdiction.

5. Conclusion

Prestwick Care’s latest skirmish in its multi-front litigation strategy failed. The Court of Appeal’s judgment is significant less for its factual outcome than for two doctrinal clarifications:

1. The Court of Appeal possesses jurisdiction to hear appeals from paper refusals of interim relief even if claimants skip an oral renewal—but will generally exercise caution before intervening.
2. The “robust balance of convenience” in public-law injunctions, buttressed by a near-indispensable need for a strong arguable case and by weighty public-interest factors, remains firmly in place. Lengthy grace periods post-revocation are exceptional and difficult to justify.

By reaffirming these principles, the judgment fortifies the Home Office’s enforcement hand in the sponsor-licence regime while sending a wider signal: interim injunctions that impede public regulatory schemes will be sparingly granted, and appellate intervention even more sparingly so.