The High Court (Administrative Court) struck out Oasis Private Care Ltd's judicial review of its sponsor licence revocation on 16 October 2026, for want of prosecution, and awarded the Home Office £9,000 in costs.
Judgment date: 16 October 2026. The hearing took place on 15 October 2026.
The claim concerned the Home Office's August 2024 decision to revoke the care provider's sponsor licence. In R (on the application of Oasis Private Care Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 2671 (Admin), Mr Andrew Burns KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, did not decide whether the revocation was lawful. He ruled only on whether the claim should continue.
The claim had been listed for a rolled-up hearing, which decides permission and, if permission is granted, the claim itself. The Claimant did not attend and was not represented. The Secretary of State applied to strike the claim out under CPR r.3.4(2)(b) (abuse of process) and r.3.4(2)(c) (failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order).
The judgment records that the Claimant's solicitors stopped acting in 2025 and that the Claimant gave the Court no address for service or notice of a change of representation. It last communicated in November 2025 and did not answer the Home Office's letters of December 2025, May 2026 and July 2026. It served no skeleton argument under Practice Direction 54A. The judge noted that the Claimant is no longer registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and that it is "highly likely" the Claimant is no longer trading.
The judge held that this was not mere delay. He found inordinate and unexcused delay, aggravated by the Claimant's failure to discontinue a claim it appeared to have no intention of pursuing, and that together these amounted to an abuse of process. He also found grounds under r.3.4(2)(c). He described striking out as a last resort, concluded that no lesser order would serve the overriding objective, and found no public policy reason to continue in the Claimant's absence.
The judge stated that these principles apply to judicial review claims as to any other claim. A claimant who cannot or will not continue to a final hearing should discontinue or take other steps to avoid wasting costs and the Court's resources (paragraph 9).
The judgment sets out the Home Office's grounds for revocation, including workers on third-party client contracts, a lack of genuine vacancies, record-keeping failures and workers not paid the stipulated salaries. The Claimant disputed these. None was determined.
The Court summarily assessed the Home Office's costs at £9,000, payable by the Claimant.
What this means for applicants
A sponsor that brings a judicial review of a licence decision must keep taking part: keep an address for service with the Court, notify any change of solicitors, and comply with directions and filing requirements. A sponsor that no longer intends to pursue a claim should discontinue it. Otherwise the claim can be struck out, as here, and the sponsor can be ordered to pay the Home Office's costs.
Sources
- [Oasis Private Care Ltd, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 2671 (Admin)](https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/admin/2026/2671), National Archives Find Case Law