header-logo header-logo

On the spot

04 June 2009 / Mark Tempest
Issue: 7372 / Categories: Features , Judicial review , Immigration & asylum , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employers are appealing against civil penalties for employing illegal workers. Mark Tempest reports

The civil penalty regime introduced by the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (IANA 2006) celebrated its first birthday on 1 March 2009. IANA 2006 allows the UK Border Agency (UKBA) to issue penalty notices against employers who employ a person in breach of immigration law. Employers face a maximum penalty of £10,000 per illegal worker. The total amount of penalties issued is already over £14m.

IANA 2006 sets out a three-stage process. It allows UKBA to impose a penalty, it allows a penalised employer to object to the penalty via an internal review, and it provides for an appeal to the county court. The appeal is the only way of challenging the penalty in law.

Appeals under IANA 2006 are governed by Pt 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which is supplemented by a lengthy practice direction. Compliance with the practice direction is mandatory.

Pt 52 discourages appeals from judicial decisions by a combination of limited rights of

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll