Brenda Efurhievwe has been acting for Jen and Jamie Limited in the company’s Civil Penalty Notice (“CPN”) appeal. The reported decision in Jen and Jamie Ltd v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCC 41, [2025] 7 WLUK 288 can be accessed here.
Brenda represented the company in its County Court appeal against two fines of £40,000. The appeal, which related to the imposition of fines regarding the work of two alleged unpaid workers, raised three grounds:
- the Respondent failed to meet the burden of proving the existence of an employment relationship;
- the Appellant was not liable due to a lack of an employment relationship in the present case; and
- the Court could exercise its discretion to reduce the CPN amount, taking into account matters outside of the Code of Practice, pursuant to s.17(2)(b) in conjunction with s.17(3)(b) of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006.
As stressed in Brenda’s submissions, the conduct of CPN appeals remains complicated by the dearth of binding authorities in this area, and a lack of reported County Court decisions to confirm standard practice. Consequently, County Courts have been approaching crucial aspects of the CPN appeal process differently, resulting in inconsistent and uncertain results, depending on a postcode lottery.
As set out here and here, while practice varies, County Courts have been known to accept that:
– the burden of proving that a person was employed and that they had no legal right to work in the UK rests on the Secretary of State;
– employment law principles apply when establishing the existence of an employment relationship for the purpose of a CPN appeal;
– ad hoc and casual work arrangements do not constitute employment and the Secretary of State must prove that there has been a contract of employment, including mutuality of obligation.
Recent unreported County Court decisions also confirm divergence in the approach to the question of the Court’s discretion to reduce the penalty amount pursuant to s.17 of the 2006 Act.
In the present case, despite finding the Appellant’s witnesses credible and accepting the applicability of the relevant employment law principles, the Judge dismissed the appeal on all grounds. Contrary to recent practice of other County Courts, the Judge also found that he does not have the discretion to consider matters outside of the Code of Practice.
Jen and Jamie Limited applied for permission to appeal the County Court decision to the Court of Appeal. Brenda was instructed by Stachiw Bashir Green Solicitors to continue acting for the Appellant.
Brenda Efurhievwe is a member of both the Civil Law, as well as the Immigration and Public Law teams. She specialises in immigration appeals and actions against public authorities.
Related barristers: Brenda Efurhievwe (Efu-rie-ve)
Related practice areas: Civil
