Supreme Court Rules Home Office Must Specify Grounds for Right-to-Work Penalties

The UK Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the Home Office must explicitly state which legal provision an employer violated when issuing civil penalties for right-to-work breaches, overturning a £15,000 fine against Akbar's Restaurants after justices found the penalty notice invalid. The unanimous decision establishes that listing all three possible grounds for a violation without specifying which applies fails to meet statutory requirements under section 15 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, according to Personnel Today.

Case Stemmed From Middlesbrough Restaurant Inspection

The case originated from a January 15, 2023 inspection of a Middlesbrough curry house operated by Akbar's, a chain of 10 restaurants employing more than 320 staff across northern England. Immigration officers encountered a worker they believed was an immigrant whose leave to remain in the UK had expired.

On March 13, 2023, the home secretary issued the civil penalty notice citing section 15 of the 2006 Act. The notice stated Akbar's had breached the law by employing an adult subject to immigration control who had either not been granted leave to enter or remain, whose leave was invalid or had ceased to have effect, or who was subject to a condition preventing the employment in question.

Section 15 of the Act provides three mutually exclusive grounds for issuing penalties and requires the home secretary to "state why" an employer is liable. The penalty notice Akbar's received listed all three grounds without identifying which applied to the specific worker found during the inspection.

Supreme Court Found Penalty Notice Legally Insufficient

Akbar's filed an appeal in county court arguing the penalty notice was invalid because it failed to specify which of the three statutory grounds applied. The county court and Court of Appeal both rejected the appeal, but the Supreme Court reversed those decisions.

Lord Sales, deputy president of the Supreme Court, said the penalty notice's failure to identify which ground the home secretary relied upon violated statutory requirements. "This she failed to do," Lord Sales stated. "Accordingly, she failed to comply with the statutory requirement."

The ruling emphasized procedural fairness. "A penalty notice should inform an employer which 'limb' the secretary of state is relying on, so that the employer can know why the state is imposing a heavy fine on them, and so they can make an informed decision about whether they have grounds for an appeal or not," Lord Sales wrote. He added that a person subjected to a fine should not have to appeal to discover the true reason the state imposed a penalty.

Home Office Has Updated Penalty Notice Procedures

The Home Office told Personnel Today it had already taken administrative steps to update civil penalty notices in response to the ruling. A spokesperson characterized the case as based on "a technicality around the wording of penalty, rather than the grounds for issuing it."

"The case did not challenge the grounds on which the penalty was issued," the spokesperson said. "Illegal workers will be arrested, detained and removed and we will continue to ensure businesses found hiring them face the full force of the law."

The Home Office did not answer questions about whether other penalty notices issued before the procedural update could be invalidated by the Supreme Court judgment.

Home Office data published last week showed 12,791 illegal working visits by Immigration Enforcement in 2025, a 57.5 percent increase over the previous year. The agency reported an 83 percent rise in arrests and a 77 percent increase in raids across the UK since July 2024, describing enforcement activity as at "the highest level in British history."

Right-to-work fines tripled in January 2024, with first-breach penalties rising to £45,000 and repeat violations carrying £60,000 fines. The government published updated draft guidance this month ahead of major changes to right-to-work verification requirements taking effect October 1, 2026.

What Happens Next

The Supreme Court ruling creates immediate compliance obligations for immigration enforcement officials drafting penalty notices. Each notice must now explicitly identify which of the three statutory grounds the Home Office believes applies to the employer's alleged violation—a change that strengthens procedural protections for businesses facing civil penalties.

Employers previously issued penalty notices that listed multiple grounds without specification may have grounds for appeal, though the Home Office's assertion that it has updated its procedures suggests recent notices already comply with the new standard. The ruling does not affect the substantive grounds for issuing penalties or the government's authority to fine employers for right-to-work violations.

The decision shifts some burden back to immigration enforcement to make clear factual determinations before imposing fines rather than listing every possible legal theory. For the restaurant sector and other industries facing increased enforcement visits, the ruling establishes that employers have a right to know precisely what the government alleges they did wrong before the fine is imposed, not after an appeal is filed.