Piperjuris Problem

<a href="https://piperjuris.co.uk/blog_details.php?id=10" style="color:#467886; text-decoration:underline">Court finds statutory appeal was validly filed and served</a>

In a significant ruling for businesses facing civil penalties under UK immigration law, the County Court at Central London has rejected the Secretary of State’s application to strike out an appeal brought by a company (“AS”) in the case of AS v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appeal No. L50CL095) at the County Court at Central London. The company challenged a £15,000 civil penalty issued under the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (IANA), and the court confirmed the appeal had been both filed and served in time.

Mr Chinonso Ijezie, Solicitor-Advocate, instructed by Riverdale Solicitors, acted for the Appellant and successfully resisted the Home Office’s procedural objections.

Background: Civil Penalty for alleged illegal employment

In early 2024, AS received a civil penalty notice following allegations by HMRC that it had employed a worker, Mr J, without the right to work in the UK. AS disputed the penalty, explaining that it had undertaken appropriate right-to-work checks, that the employment lasted only a month, and that the individual was promptly removed from payroll once his immigration status changed. 
 
The company filed a formal objection, which was rejected by the Home Office on 29 August 2024. Under section 17(4B) of the IANA, AS then had 28 days to bring a statutory appeal by 25 September 2024.

Home Office challenge: Alleged failure to serve in time

AS filed its Appellant’s Notice on 19 September 2024. However, the Home Office applied to strike out the appeal, arguing that:

<ul>
<li style="text-align:justify">the appeal had not been served on the Secretary of State within the 28-day time limit;</li>
</ul>

<ul>
<li style="text-align:justify">no certificate of service had been filed; and</li>
</ul>

<ul>
<li style="text-align:justify"> the statutory deadline under IANA was strict and non-extendable, with no discretion to allow late service.</li>
</ul>

The Respondent (Home Office) relied heavily on case law from extradition contexts such as Mucelli v. Government of Albania (Criminal Appeal from Her Majesty's High Court of Justice) [2009] UKHL 2 and Pomiechowski v. The District Court in Torun, Poland [2012] UKSC 20 , to argue for a rigid application of the statutory deadline.

Appellant’s submissions

Mr Ijezie’s submissions addressed the interplay between the IANA, CPR 52, and the relevant Practice Directions, drawing a clear distinction between statutory deadlines for filing and procedural rules for service. He relied on practical authority, including Kennedy v. The National Trust for Scotland [2019] EWCA Civ 648 [103-138] and T&L Sugars Limited v. Tate & Lyle Industries Limited [2014] EWHC 1066 (Comm) [27-43], to argue that service had occurred once the court posted the sealed notice. Mr Ijezie also clarified the procedural understanding that appeals under IANA, unlike those in extradition cases, are initiated by filing, with service governed by civil procedure. His representations assisted the court in reaching a clear and pragmatic conclusion that preserved the Appellant’s right of appeal.

Court’s findings: Filing and service were valid and timely

The court found that the appeal had been validly filed on 19 September, well within the statutory deadline. Importantly, it also found that service was effected when the court itself posted the sealed Appellant’s Notice to the Government Legal Department on 24 September, one day before the deadline.

In his ruling, Recorder King held:

<ul>
<li style="text-align:justify">the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) govern the method of service, even where the statutory time limit for bringing the appeal is fixed by legislation;</li>
</ul>

<ul>
<li style="text-align:justify">service was effectively completed when the court sent the sealed notice to the Respondent;</li>
</ul>

<ul>
<li style="text-align:justify">the absence of a certificate of service was not fatal, particularly where the court had carried out service;</li>
</ul>

<ul>
<li style="text-align:justify">even if service had not been effected strictly in accordance with the rules, the court would have exercised discretion under CPR 3.10 to remedy any procedural error.</li>
</ul>

Key takeaways for employers and legal practiti

Professional Web and mobile app Design — We Build Results Focused Websites To Attract Your Ideal Clients.

Contact us on +2347066016167

Piperjuris Problem

Piperjuris Problem

Our recent projects

Our Video Ad