Court of Appeal dismisses Home Office appeal in Treal Care sponsor licence case

On 5 November 2026 the Court of Appeal dismissed the Home Secretary's appeal in Treal Care (UK) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 1420. The High Court's decision to quash the revocation of the care provider's sponsor licence therefore stands.

What happened

Treal Care supplies care staff to the NHS, local authorities and clinical care groups. The Home Office revoked its sponsor licence on 1 October 2024. There was no right of appeal, so the company challenged the decision by judicial review. This is a court process that checks whether a public body acted lawfully.

The Home Office gave two grounds. The first was that three sponsored workers had not been paid the salary stated on their certificates of sponsorship (CoS). Each CoS recorded a gross annual salary of £22,400. The second was that there was no genuine vacancy for those three roles. The High Court handed down its judgment on 16 July 2025 and quashed the revocation.

What the Court of Appeal decided

The Home Office's appeal concerned the salary issue. Its argument was that where a CoS states an annual salary and the worker is paid monthly, the sponsor must pay at least one-twelfth of that salary every month. Any shortfall would have to be reported, and failing to report it could lead to mandatory revocation.

The Court of Appeal did not accept that argument. In summary, the sponsor guidance does not impose an automatic requirement to pay one-twelfth of the annual salary in every month, particularly where hours and pay vary. Where hours are uneven, compliance with an annual salary commitment calls for a rounded assessment over an appropriate period. A lower payment in a single month does not, on its own, show that the sponsor has failed to meet that commitment.

The court is also understood to have stressed that a policy must not be applied so rigidly that it removes the decision-maker's discretion. The full reasoning is in the judgment itself, and sponsors should read it with their advisers.

The salary rules involved

Annex C1 of the sponsor guidance lists the situations in which the Home Office says it will revoke a licence. These are often called "mandatory" grounds. One of them applies where a sponsor pays a worker less than the CoS states and has not reported the change, or the reduction is not otherwise permitted. The guidance also says breaches do not have to be deliberate to count.

What this means for sponsors

• Salary duties are unchanged. Sponsored workers must still be paid at least the salary stated on their CoS, and permitted reductions must still be reported.
• One low month is not automatically fatal. Pay should be looked at over a sensible period, which matters most for roles with variable hours.
• Explanations matter. In this case the shortfalls were said to have arisen because training hours had not reached payroll. Treal corrected this with a lump-sum payment before the revocation decision.
• The ruling is not a licence to defer pay. It does not remove the need for accurate payroll records, reporting and a clear audit trail.

The Court of Appeal's decision was on the salary point. It should not be read as a ruling on genuine vacancy findings. Revocation has serious consequences, including loss of the right to sponsor workers and possible curtailment (shortening) of those workers' permission to stay. Each case turns on its own facts.

The Home Office has not yet published a response to the ruling. We will update this article when it does.

For more on the underlying rules, see our pages on sponsor licence compliance, sponsor licence suspension and revocation and appeals and judicial review.

How Garth Coates Solicitors can help

We advise sponsors on compliance reviews, responding to suspension and revocation, and judicial review. If you would like to discuss your organisation's position, please request a consultation.