The High Court has considered whether an employer fined £15,000 for employing an illegal worker can extend the 28-day statutory time limit for appealing, where its solicitors say papers were left in a court drop-box on the last day.
Key facts
- Who: Employers issued with a civil penalty notice for employing an illegal worker, and their advisers
- From: 16 April 2026 (date of judgment)
- Source: Sikander Grocers Ltd v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 883 (KB)
In Sikander Grocers Ltd v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 883 (KB), Mrs Justice Foster gave judgment in the King's Bench Division of the High Court on 16 April 2026. The hearing took place on 22 July 2025.
Background
On 20 December 2023 the company was issued with a civil penalty notice for £15,000, stated to be for employing an illegal worker in breach of section 15 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. It objected, and the objection was rejected on 30 January 2024. The Home Office maintained the penalty at the £15,000 starting point without reduction. It said the company had provided no evidence of reporting its suspicions and had not responded to an information request of 21 November 2023.
The notice said the company could appeal to the County Court using form N161, with the court fee, by 26 February 2024. Time for appealing expired under the statute on that date.
The company's solicitors said a trainee solicitor took the appeal documents to Luton County Court on 26 February 2024. According to that account, no member of staff was available to take the bundle and there was no facility to pay by debit card. She left the bundle in the hand-delivery box with a cheque for the fee, and emailed the court and the Home Office that afternoon. The judge described the evidence as "somewhat sparse" and took it from the solicitors' appeal documents and the trainee's statement of 22 March 2024.
The question
Section 17 of the 2006 Act requires an appeal to be brought within 28 days beginning with the relevant date, and does not on its face allow an extension. The parties agreed that Civil Procedure Rules Part 52 applies and that Practice Direction 52D, paragraph 3.5, gives the court no power to extend a period fixed by statute. The question was whether the narrow discretion linked to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights could apply.
The legal framework
The judge reviewed Pomiechowski v Poland [2012] UKSC 20 and Adesina v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2013] EWCA Civ 818. Those cases read the statute so as to be compatible with Article 6, allowing a discretion to extend time only in exceptional circumstances. It has on occasion been stated that this requires the appellant to have personally done all they could to bring the appeal in time. In Adesina, the Court of Appeal held that a court error in refusing to accept a notice of appeal justified an extension of a few days. The judge stressed that the power is not a broad one, and noted that another applicant in Adesina, who had left it too late, was refused.
What this means for employers
Section 17 of the 2006 Act sets a 28-day period for appealing a civil penalty, and the court's power to extend it is narrow and arises only in exceptional circumstances. Employers facing a penalty may wish to take advice on the appeal deadline before it passes.
Sources
- Sikander Grocers Ltd v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 883 (KB), High Court (King's Bench Division), 16 April 2026