CA-2024-000740 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1375

This ground can be dealt with relatively shortly. Mr Malik submits that the claimant did not work more than 20 hours in the week beginning 6 November 2023 as he did not work at Tesco on the Friday and Saturday of 10 and 11 November 2023.

The short answer is that the decision – which was reached on 7 November 2023 - was not based on a failure to comply with the condition during the week of 6 to 12 November 2023. The claimant’s own admission made to the immigration officer in interview was that he started work at Lucky’s on 15 October 2023 and worked for 9 hours on a Monday and 9 hours on a Tuesday. He admitted he had worked at Tesco since November 2022 and worked 10 hours on Friday and 10 hours on Saturday. On the claimant’s own admissions in interview, he therefore worked more than the permitted 20 hours in the weeks beginning 16 October, 23 October and 30 November 2023. He was working 38 hours a week. The immigration officer was entitled to conclude that the claimant had failed to comply with the condition that he work a maximum of 20 hours a week in term time.

Mr Malik suggested that the claimant was traumatised by the process of being arrested and interviewed and that the claimant’s admissions in interview were unclear or required further probing. He drew attention to subsequent witness statements of the claimant saying that his first day at Lucky’s was 6 November 2023.

The claimant was asked a simple and straightforward question: when did he start at Lucky’s? He answered “October 15 2023”. There was no lack of clarity in the question or the answer. He said he started on October 15 2023. He did not say he started work on 6 November 2023, or that his first day of work was the previous day, or that the day he was arrested was his second day at Lucky’s. There is no suggestion that the claimant did not understand the question (he had confirmed to the immigration officer whilst still in the premises that he understood English and he was, of course, studying for a Master’s degree at a university in England).

In those circumstances, the immigration officer was entitled to conclude, on the evidence before her, that the claimant had failed to comply with a condition of his leave in that he was working more than the permitted 20 hours a week during term time.