The case centred around allegations that Mems Mezze Turkish restaurant had been illegally employing a number of staff without the right to work in the UK and failed to pay them the minimum wage.

The Home Office issued a civil penalty notice of £120,000 against the alleged employer (Ede Meze Ltd) and, in parallel, launched a licence review against the premises licence holder, Ms Elvin Akis. However, these two entities were different both in substance and form. In 2022, the employer had taken over the running of the restaurant from Ms Akis under a lease agreement, although Ms Akis remained the licence holder and Designated Premises Supervisor (“DPS”).

Whilst accepting that Ms Akis retained ultimate responsibility for promoting the licensing objectives, and that it was a mistake for her to have remained as DPS since she was not in day to day control of the premises, she submitted that it would be inappropriate and disproportionate to revoke her licence given she was not the offending employer. Moreover, the Home Office implicitly accepted that was the case since they were pursuing Ede Meze Ltd for the illegal worker offences and not Ms Akis. The Chief Immigration Officer referred to the section 182 Guidance to the Licensing Act 2003 which indicates that where premises are found to be employing illegal workers, this should be treated particularly seriously and revocation should be “seriously considered” even on a first review of the licence. However, given the exceptional circumstances of this case, it was submitted by Counsel for Ms Akis that revocation ought not to follow, since Ms Akis had (1) taken responsible and active steps to terminate the lease of her tenant as soon as she discovered the facts, (2) had resumed control of the restaurant herself, and (3) introduced robust right to work checks with independent audits. Counsel observed that “the best cure for a headache is not always a beheading”.

The licensing sub-committee determined not to revoke the licence. Instead, they issued a formal warning to the licence holder and imposed three conditions as proposed on her behalf.

This case highlights the importance of proper due diligence in right to work checks by licence holders, the need for licence holders to keep a supervisory eye on their tenants,  and the potential consequences for the licence holder if a tenant misbehaves.

The case was reported in detail here.

Gary Grant acted for the licence holder instructed by Fabien Simms of FSL Consultants.