Akbars Restaurant (Middlesbrough) Limited (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0024

Parties

Appellant(s)

Akbars Restaurant (Middlesbrough) Limited

Respondent(s)

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Issue

The principal issue concerns the validity of a civil penalty notice issued by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under section 15 of the Immigration Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. In view of the requirement under s.15(6)(a) that a notice must “state why the Secretary of State thinks the employer is liable to the penalty”, is the penalty notice invalid if it does not identify which of the grounds in s.15(1) applies (i.e. by specifying the circumstances in which a person subject to immigration control has no right to work)?

Facts

An employer acts in contravention of section 15 of the 2006 Act if they employ an adult subject to immigration control who: (a) has not been granted leave to enter or remain in the UK; or (b) his leave to enter or remain in the UK – (i) is invalid; (ii) has ceased to have effect; or (iii) is subject to a condition preventing him from accepting his employment. By section 15(6)(a), a penalty notice must ‘state why’ the Secretary of State thinks the employer is liable to the penalty. On 13 March 2023, the Secretary of State for the Home Department (“SSHD”) issued a civil penalty notice under section 15(2) of the Immigration Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (“the 2006 Act”) to Akbars Restaurant (Middlesbrough) Limited (“Akbars”). Under the heading “You are liable for a civil penalty”, the penalty notice stated that the SSHD had concluded that Akbars had breached s.15 of the 2006 Act, and it then listed all three options under s.15(b). Under the heading “Your penalty breakdown”, the notice identified the relevant employee, stated the penalty reason as “no right to work” and referred to an attached statement of case which “sets out the reasons for the breach for each worker and supporting evidence”. The statement of case explained that the Home Office records showed that the employee did not have the right to work in the UK. Akbars sent a notice of objection to the SSHD. This was rejected by the SSHD on 26 April 2023. On 12 May 2023, Akbars filed an appellant’s notice with the County Court. No point was taken at that state that the penalty notice was defective. Akbars and the Government Legal Department engaged in correspondence. In an email from Akbars, there was an erroneous mention that the penalty notice was imposed pursuant to s. 15(1)(b)(iii) of the 2006 Act. Emails in response from the GLD erroneously repeated this characterisation of the notice. In the County Court, Akbars argued that the notice was defective because it failed to specify a ‘statutory reason’ as set out in s.15(1). Moreover, the SSHD had stated in correspondence that she relied on s.15(1)(b)(iii) and then sought to change her position to rely on s.15(1)(b)(ii). She could not resile from the assertion in correspondence. Akbars was unsuccessful in the County Court on both grounds. The Court of Appeal dismissed Akbars’ appeal. Akbars now applies for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Date of issue

12 February 2025

Case origin

PTA

Back to top