ARTICLE
13 August 2026

Ross Kennedy Explains A Supreme Court Ruling On Sponsor Licence Penalties

The Supreme Court's ruling in Akbars Restaurant v Secretary of State for the Home Department has significant implications for employers facing illegal working penalties. The decision establishes that civil penalty notices must specify the exact statutory basis for liability rather than simply listing all possible grounds. Immigration practitioners and employers should examine existing penalty notices to determine whether they meet this new standard of specificity.
United Kingdom Immigration

“The Supreme Court has allowed the appeal in Akbars Restaurant (Middlesbrough) Limited v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] UKSC 26, holding that a civil penalty notice issued under section 15 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 was invalid because it did not specifically state the basis on which the Home Secretary considered the employer liable” writes Vanessa Ganguin Immigration Law’s Senior Client Manager Ross Kennedy in his latest explainer for immigration practitioner’s publication Free Movement.

“If this is standard practice, this could have implications for a significant number of illegal working penalties, and advisers should check at the outset whether a notice identifies the statutory basis relied upon,” he adds.

The Supreme Court held that a penalty notice under section 15 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 was invalid because it didn’t state the specific basis on which the Home Secretary considered the employer liable. In the case of Akbars Restaurant, the notice simply listed all the reasons available rather than identifying which was relied upon.

Employers who believe a notice recites section 15(1) of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 wholesale without pinning down the specific allegation would do well to seek legal advice. They should:

  • Raise the invalidity point at the outset, within the objection deadline. Frame the objection (and any subsequent appeal) around the notice’s non-compliance with section 15(6)(a), citing Akbars.
  • Don’t treat it as a get-out-of-jail-free card. The decision doesn’t weaken the obligation to carry out and retain compliant right to work checks. Where there has in fact been a breach, the Home Office can simply issue a new, valid notice.
  • Keep the substantive defence ready in parallel. As the Home Office may reissue a penalty notice, the smart approach is to run the invalidity argument alongside evidence of statutory excuse or non-liability, if possible, rather than relying on the technical point alone.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More