On 27 July 2026 the UK Supreme Court handed down [2026] UKSC 26 in Akbars Restaurant (Middlesbrough) Limited v Secretary of State for the Home Department. The Court unanimously held that a civil penalty notice under section 15 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 is invalid if it fails to identify the specific limb of section 15(1) the Secretary of State relies on.

For employers and sponsors, the case is about notice quality and fairness in the illegal working penalty regime — not about Skilled Worker salaries, and not about any claim as to whether Akbars Restaurant (Middlesbrough) Limited currently holds a sponsor licence (this article makes none).

General information as at 14 September 2026. It is not advice on your facts. Worldwide Immigration Ltd is an IAA-regulated immigration advice organisation (Ref F201900032). Advisers are not SRA-regulated solicitors.

The holding, accurately

Lord Sales delivered the judgment (Lord Leggatt, Lord Richards, Lady Rose and Lady Simler agreeing). The appeal was allowed.

Core points from the judgment and official press summary:

  1. Section 15(6)(a) requires the penalty notice, read as a whole, to explain the basis on which the Secretary of State considers the employer liable, including identifying which limb of section 15(1) is relied upon.
  2. The limbs in section 15(1) are mutually exclusive. Listing all of them in the alternative, without saying which one applies, does not state why liability is thought to arise.
  3. The Secretary of State must specify which limb of section 15(1) is relied on as the basis for the penalty in the notice itself.
  4. An employer should not have to appeal merely to find out which limb is in play.
  5. Failure to identify the section 15(1) basis in the notice cannot be cured retrospectively by later correspondence or by clarification during an appeal. Evidence or argument at the county court re-hearing does not repair a notice that failed section 15(6)(a) when it was given.
  6. A defective notice of this kind is not treated as a minor procedural slip that still leaves the penalty effective. If the notice does not meet section 15(6)(a), it is invalid in this statutory context.

Press summary: UKSC press summary — UKSC/2025/0024. Judgment: UKSC judgment page / PDF judgment. Neutral citation: [2026] UKSC 26.

What section 15(1) actually says

Section 15(1) makes it contrary to the section to employ an adult subject to immigration control if:

  • (a) he has not been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, or
  • (b) his leave to enter or remain —

- (i) is invalid, - (ii) has ceased to have effect (whether by reason of curtailment, revocation, cancellation, passage of time or otherwise), or - (iii) is subject to a condition preventing him from accepting the employment.

Those alternatives are mutually inconsistent. A generic label such as “no right to work” is not a substitute for picking the correct limb.

What went wrong in the Akbars Restaurant (Middlesbrough) Limited notice

Immigration officers inspected the restaurant on 15 January 2023. On 13 March 2023 the Secretary of State issued a civil penalty notice for £15,000. Under the liability heading, the notice used a generic “no right to work” framing and set out the statutory alternatives — employing an adult subject to immigration control who had (a) not been granted leave, or (b) whose leave was invalid or had ceased to have effect, or (c) who was subject to a condition preventing the employment — without identifying which limb actually applied.

The accompanying Statement of Case likewise failed to identify the particular limb. Only later, in the run-up to the county court appeal, did the Secretary of State’s position crystallise around leave having expired (section 15(1)(b)(ii)), with shifting references also to (b)(iii) in correspondence. On the Supreme Court’s reasoning, that later clarification does not cure the original notice.

The county court and the Court of Appeal ([2024] EWCA Civ 1387) upheld the notice. The Supreme Court reversed that approach on the interpretation of section 15(6)(a).

Why employers and sponsors should care

1. Penalty notices are penal and must be particularised

The Court stressed the constitutional context: the regime is penal in nature. Where the state imposes a financial penalty, the person affected is entitled to know why. Fairness also requires enough information to decide whether to object under section 16 or appeal under section 17, and what evidence to gather.

2. Objection and appeal rights only work if the charge is clear

Section 16 objections include that the employer is “not liable to the imposition of a penalty”. Section 17 appeals include the same ground. You cannot sensibly deny a limb you have not been told is the case against you. Lord Sales also held that on appeal the Secretary of State is not permitted to defend by switching to a limb never specified in the notice.

3. Right to work systems remain your first defence — the case does not weaken checks

Nothing in [2026] UKSC 26 says employers can skip prescribed right to work checks. The statutory excuse in section 15(3) (compliance with prescribed requirements) remains central. The judgment polices how the Home Office must explain liability when it issues a notice — it does not reward poor checking. Prescribed right to work checks and the section 15(3) excuse stay the operational core of prevention.

For day-to-day check process (including eVisa share codes), see our live guide: How UK employers run a right to work check with an eVisa share code in 2026.

Supporting GOV.UK: Code of practice on preventing illegal working.

4. Civil penalty, right to work, and sponsor licence — keep them distinct

Three tracks often arise together in practice, but they are legally separate:

  • Civil penalty liability under section 15 is about whether the Home Office has lawfully issued a penalty notice for illegal working, and whether you have a statutory excuse.
  • Right to work compliance is the day-to-day checking regime that underpins that excuse. Akbars does not change what prescribed checks you must do.
  • Sponsor-licence action (suspension, revocation, compliance visits, SMS reporting) sits under separate sponsor guidance. A civil penalty can be a serious compliance event for a licensed sponsor, but it is not the same decision as a licence revocation.

Licensed sponsors already carry SMS reporting, Key Personnel and right to work expectations under Home Office sponsor guidance. Akbars Restaurant (Middlesbrough) Limited does not create a new sponsor duty and does not change existing sponsor duties. What it does mean, if a penalty notice arrives, is that you should:

  • read whether it identifies a specific section 15(1) limb;
  • preserve the notice and Statement of Case exactly as served;
  • take advice quickly on objection deadlines and validity arguments;
  • keep sponsor reporting and personnel records aligned with what you say in any objection — without treating the civil-penalty track as if it were itself a licence decision.

This article does not assert whether Akbars Restaurant (Middlesbrough) Limited (or any other named business) currently holds a sponsor licence.

Practical checklist if you receive a civil penalty notice

  1. Diary the objection / appeal deadlines shown on the notice.
  2. Check whether the notice states which section 15(1) limb is relied on — not merely a list of all limbs or a generic “no right to work”.
  3. Keep every page of the notice and Statement of Case; do not rely on later emails to “fix” the original.
  4. Assemble your right to work check audit trail for the named individual (online check / share code outputs, document copies, dates).
  5. If you sponsor migrants, review whether any parallel sponsor reporting or Key Personnel action is required under current Part 1 / Part 3 guidance — that is separate from the civil-penalty response.
  6. Obtain regulated advice before deciding whether to object, appeal or pay where validity is in issue.

What this article is not

  • Not a Skilled Worker salary, Immigration Salary List or route-eligibility piece.
  • Not a prediction about Home Office template redrafting timelines (watch live GOV.UK codes of practice and any revised notice templates).
  • Not commentary on expanded working-arrangement liability under other 2026 legislation — keep that on the separate RTW expansion materials if and when published.

How we can help

Worldwide Immigration’s IAA-regulated advisers (F201900032) support employers on sponsor-licence compliance, right to work processes and responses to Home Office compliance activity. Start with our Sponsor Licence service page, call 020 3488 2308, or email info@worldwideimmigration.co.uk.

Frequently asked questions

Did the Supreme Court say every civil penalty notice is invalid?

No. It held that a notice which fails to specify the particular section 15(1) limb relied on does not comply with section 15(6)(a) and, in that context, is invalid. Notices that properly identify the limb are a different case.

Can the Home Office fix a defective notice by writing later?

No. Failure to identify the section 15(1) basis cannot be cured retrospectively by later correspondence or clarification during an appeal. The judgment notes the Secretary of State can issue a new compliant notice if an error is spotted.

Does this reduce my need to do right to work checks?

No. Prescribed checks and the section 15(3) statutory-excuse regime remain the operational core of prevention. Akbars is about the content of the state’s penalty notice, not about abandoning due diligence.

Is this the same as a sponsor-licence revocation decision?

No. Civil penalties under section 15, right to work compliance, and sponsor-licence action are related in risk terms but legally distinct. The case does not change sponsor duties. Take advice on each track if more than one arises.

Sources