Key Facts
- •Akbars Restaurant was issued a civil penalty notice by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) under s.15 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 for employing an individual without the right to work.
- •The penalty notice listed all grounds under s.15(1) for liability, without specifying which ground applied.
- •Akbars objected, initially focusing on whether the penalty was issued under s.15(1)(b)(iii), then arguing the notice was defective for not specifying the statutory reason.
- •The SSHD's initial correspondence seemed to support Akbars' interpretation, then clarified the ground was s.15(1)(b)(ii) (leave to remain ceased to have effect).
- •The County Court judge dismissed Akbars' appeal, finding the penalty notice sufficient and allowing the SSHD to rely on s.15(1)(b)(ii) despite initial confusion.
Legal Principles
A penalty notice under s.15(6)(a) of the 2006 Act must state why the Secretary of State thinks the employer is liable to the penalty.
Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, s.15(6)(a)
The requirement to state 'why' in s.15(6)(a) does not necessitate specifying the precise s.15(1) ground relied upon; identifying facts and evidence showing the employee lacked the right to work suffices.
Court of Appeal judgment
On appeal under s.17(3), the court can consider matters beyond those in the penalty notice, including facts unknown to the SSHD at the time of issuance. The appeal is a rehearing of the decision to impose a penalty, not a rehearing limited to the specific grounds initially cited.
Court of Appeal judgment
The onus is on the employer to conduct right-to-work checks (s.15(3)) and demonstrate non-liability on appeal (s.17(1)).
Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, s.15(3), s.17(1)
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The penalty notice, viewed as a whole, sufficiently stated why the SSHD believed Akbars was liable. The requirement in s.15(6)(a) is not as prescriptive as Akbars argued. The SSHD was entitled to rely on a different ground (s.15(1)(b)(ii)) on appeal due to the nature of the appeal process under s.17(3), and Akbars suffered no prejudice.