Aston Brooke Solicitors secure Landmark Judicial Review ruling for the Care Sector against the Home Office

In a landmark ruling, the High Court delivered a significant judgment, in favour of Hartford Care Group Limited (HCG), challenging the Secretary of State for the Home Department’s (SSHD) decision to reject HCG’s application for 70 Defined Certificates of Sponsorship (DCoS). This case sets a crucial precedent for how the Home Office assesses applications for Defined Certificate of Sponsorship (DCoS), particularly in the care sector.

The Case Background
HCG, a prominent provider of care services in the UK, has held a sponsor license since April 2019. On 8 January 2024, Aston Brooke Solicitors applied for 70 DCoS on behalf of HCG. These certificates are vital for non-UK workers to obtain a visa to work in the UK. However, on 29 January 2024, the SSHD rejected HCG’s application, citing insufficient evidence to demonstrate a genuine need for additional staff.

Aston Brooke Solicitors swiftly initiated a Judicial Review, challenging the legality of the decision, which could have significant consequences for the care sector, heavily reliant on overseas workers to meet staffing demands and stating HCG contracts with their service users and the Local Authority did not state the number of hours. The Judicial Review application also included Care England as an interested party representing the care sector.

Professor Martin Green OBE chief executive of Care England stated after the verdict was delivered.

“In winning the Judicial Review, Aston Brooke Solicitors has done a great service to the care sector because this victory will cause The Secretary of State for the Home Department to rethink how they behave towards the independent care providers. No one should be in any doubt that when we see unacceptable behaviour, we will be prepared to challenge it and use the law to enforce our rights.”

The Legal Challenge
Aston Brooke Solicitors argued that the SSHD’s decision was unlawful, irrational, and inconsistent with the Immigration Rules. Aston Brooke Solicitors contended that the Home Office had imposed requirements not set out in the rules, relied on unpublished policies, and failed to assess the evidence properly. In particular, the SSHD insisted on receiving contracts that guaranteed specific hours of work, which Aston Brooke Solicitors argued were not standard in the care sector.

The SSHD defended its position by stating that additional information could be requested to validate the applications

The Administrative Court’s Ruling
On 14 January 2025, the High Court ruled in favour of HCG, stating that it was irrational for the SSHD to require contracts with guaranteed hours to prove the genuineness of care worker vacancies. The Judge highlighted that flexible contracts are standard in the care sector, where the demand for staff can vary depending on factors such as local authority funding and service user needs.
The Judge also criticised the SSHD’s assumption that local authorities impose staffing quotas, pointing out that care providers have discretion over how many workers they need to meet demand. Furthermore, the Judge found that HCG’s evidence adequately demonstrated the genuine need for additional staff, rendering the SSHD’s rejection of the application irrational.

The Outcome and Its Significance
The High Court granted a quashing order of the SSHD’s decision, declaring it unlawful. Aston Brooke Solicitors will now reapply for the DCoS for HCG without the commercial risks associated with the initial rejection.

Ray Purewal, Head of Litigation at Aston Brooke Solicitors said
We are pleased with the outcome and the ruling sends a clear message to the Secretary of State for the Home Department about the importance of reasonable and consistent decision-making when evaluating DCoS applications. The genuine care providers in the care sector support the crackdown on abuse of the skilled worker visas. However more meaningful consultation between the care sector and the lawmakers would have prevented the current scenario from occurring. I am sure there are many care providers who have unlawfully had their DCoS applications rejected and the financial implication is immense.

Kashif Majeed, Head of Corporate Immigration at Aston Brooke Solicitors said
For the care sector, the decision has significant implications. It emphasises that the Home Office must assess applications based on realistic criteria that reflect the sector’s operational practices. While the SSHD can request additional information to verify the authenticity of job vacancies, it cannot impose unreasonable or unattainable requirements, particularly when those conditions do not align with the realities of the care sector.

The Bigger Picture: Implications for the Care Sector
This case highlights the essential role that international workers play in the UK’s care sector, especially in light of the growing demand for care services due to an aging population. The judgment provides clarity for care providers seeking to hire overseas workers, reassuring them that their flexibility in staffing and contractual arrangements will be recognized.

The ruling also sets a precedent for future DCoS applications, ensuring that care providers are not burdened with unrealistic requirements. This decision affirms that decisions made by the SSHD must be grounded in the reality of the care industry, where staffing needs are often dynamic and flexible.

Conclusion
The King (on the Application of Hartford Care Group Limited) v. The Secretary of State for the Home Department is a major victory for the care sector, ensuring that the Home

Office’s decision-making process is fair and aligned with the sector’s operational realities. The case reinforces the importance of reasonable and consistent policies in assessing DCoS applications and provides a vital precedent for care providers looking to hire international workers to meet the UK’s growing care needs.