Prestwick Care & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application for permission to appeal against an order dated 21 March 2025, where a deputy High Court judge refused interim relief to the Appellant. The relief sought would have prevented the Secretary of State from determining pending applications for leave to remain in the UK by the Appellant's employees.

The Appellant is a group of three companies operating 15 care homes, employing 729 staff, including 44 foreign nationals dependent on sponsorship certificates issued under the visa sponsorship scheme. The Appellant was a licensed sponsor since November 2008.

Between 24 and 27 October 2022, the respondent's sponsor compliance team inspected the Appellant's care homes, resulting in the suspension of the Appellant’s licence on 6 December 2022 due to alleged non-compliance. Despite representations by the Appellant, the licence was revoked on 3 February 2023.

The Appellant initiated multiple judicial review proceedings challenging various decisions related to the licence suspension, revocation, and refusal of a new skilled worker licence. The first judicial review (JR1) challenged the revocation decision and was dismissed in November 2023, though permission to appeal was later granted and the appeal dismissed on 11 March 2025.

Subsequent judicial reviews (JR2 and JR3) challenged refusals to review decisions or grant new licences, with permission refused or outstanding. The current proceedings (JR4) challenge the respondent’s refusal to continue an informal agreement which had paused the determination of leave to remain applications for the Appellant’s employees pending JR1 appeal.

The informal agreement, reached in November 2024, effectively placed pending leave to remain applications on hold until the JR1 appeal was decided. After the appeal was dismissed, the respondent refused to extend the agreement, prompting the present application for interim relief to suspend determination of those applications pending JR4 permission.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the application for permission to appeal against the refusal of interim relief.
2. Whether the judge erred in refusing interim relief by taking into account irrelevant considerations and overlooking relevant ones.
3. Whether the refusal to continue the informal agreement was irrational or in breach of the respondent’s own policy.
4. The appropriate application of the American Cyanamid test, as modified for public law cases, in granting interim relief.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• There is a serious issue to be tried, and damages would not be an adequate remedy due to the impact on vulnerable care home residents.
• The balance of convenience favors granting interim relief to maintain the status quo.
• The judge’s analysis under the American Cyanamid test was defective, having failed to consider relevant factors and having taken irrelevant ones into account.
• The judge did not have the benefit of the Appellant’s reply submissions, which may have affected his reasoning.
• Relevant considerations overlooked include: the distinct issue of mitigating impact rather than reconsidering revocation; the Appellant’s lack of prior knowledge of licence loss; the unreasonable delay in determining the current sponsorship application; evidence of devastating impact without interim relief; and the risk that the substantive claim will become academic.
• Irrelevant considerations improperly taken into account include: the pending leave to remain applications (which the relief sought aimed to freeze); the respondent’s consistent position not to continue the informal agreement if JR1 failed; and the short period for which relief was sought.

Respondent's Arguments

• The most recent sponsor licence application remains under review, and a site visit has now occurred.
• The delay in determining the sponsorship application is not relevant to the interim relief application.
• The judge correctly applied the law, accurately summarizing facts and interim relief principles, and properly concluded no real prospect of success and that the balance of convenience did not favor relief.
• The Appellant failed to demonstrate a strong prima facie case, a significant factor in public law interim relief decisions.
• The court’s jurisdiction to hear the appeal is narrow and limited to correcting irrational or plainly incorrect decisions.
• The refusal to continue the informal agreement was neither irrational nor a breach of policy.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
American Cyanamid v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396	Test for granting interim injunctions, balancing real prospect of success and balance of convenience	The judge applied this test, modified for public law, finding no real prospect of success and an unfavorable balance of convenience to the Appellant.
R (Detention Action) v SSHD [2020] EWHC 732 (Admin)	Modification of American Cyanamid for public law interim relief	Referenced as authority for the test applied by the judge in refusing interim relief.
R (X) v Ofsted [2020] EWCA Civ 594	Significance of a strong prima facie case in public law interim relief	The court cited this as confirming that a strong prima facie case is a significant factor, which the Appellant failed to demonstrate.
R (Public and Commercial Services Union) and others v SSHD [2022] EWCA Civ 840	Principles governing interim relief and appeals against refusal of such relief	Summarized interim relief principles and appellate deference to trial judge’s discretion.
Frank Industries Pty UK v Nike Retail BV [2018] EWCA Civ 497	Appellate court’s role in reviewing discretionary interim relief decisions	Quoted to emphasize appellate restraint and respect for trial judge’s evaluation.
R (AR) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police [2018] UKSC 47	Standards for appellate intervention in discretionary judicial decisions	Relied upon by the Appellant to argue for flexible application of principles, but the court found no material difference from established principles.
Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489	Criteria for admission of new evidence on appeal	Referenced in relation to the Appellant’s application to adduce new witness evidence, which was admitted de bene esse but found immaterial.
MD (Afghanistan) v SSHD [2012] EWCA Civ 194	Jurisdiction and discretion regarding renewal of interim applications	Clarified that refusal on papers should normally be renewed at oral hearing; jurisdiction is discretionary rather than absolute.
R (on the application of Nolson) v Stevenage Borough Council [2020] EWCA Civ 379	Effect of Civil Procedure Rules on interim application renewals and appeals	Considered in jurisdictional arguments but not fully argued; court endorsed jurisdiction to hear the present application.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first addressed jurisdiction, confirming it had authority to hear the appeal despite the lack of oral renewal in the High Court, relying on statutory provisions and established case law emphasizing discretion and practice rather than strict jurisdictional bars.

The court then reviewed the principles governing interim relief, particularly in public law claims, citing the American Cyanamid test as modified and emphasizing the need for a strong prima facie case and a favorable balance of convenience.

The court noted the judge’s findings that the Appellant had no real prospect of success at trial and that the balance of convenience did not favor granting interim relief. The judge also considered the public interest in the lawful and robust application of the licensing regime, the length of time since licence revocation, and the adequacy of the 14-day period granted for employees to regularize their status, which had effectively been extended to 30 days.

The Appellant’s arguments that relevant factors were overlooked and irrelevant ones considered were carefully examined but found unpersuasive. The court found no arguable error of principle or law in the judge’s reasoning or discretion.

The court also considered the admission of new evidence but found it did not materially affect the outcome.

In sum, the court concluded that the judge’s refusal of interim relief was not wrong, and that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any error that would justify appellate intervention.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the application for permission to appeal against the refusal of interim relief.

The direct consequence is that the Secretary of State may proceed with determining the pending applications for leave to remain by the Appellant’s employees without interim suspension. No new precedent was established; the decision reinforces the established approach to interim relief in public law cases and affirms the discretion of the trial judge in such matters.