Administrative Court denies bid to set aside circular on employers’ right-to-work checks

The Administrative Court has denied Willowglass Repairs Ltd’s request to set aside an employer preparation circular insofar as it directed changes to existing right-to-work checks. The court found that the company had not proved any present direction to change those checks. No monetary award was made.

The dispute turned on two apparently competing messages: employers were told to prepare to accept participating European applicants without sponsorship, but were also expressly told that existing checks remained in place pending further notice.

The judge accepted that the preparation language reasonably created uncertainty. But the express preservation of current checks, coupled with the lack of evidence of a separate instruction or changes in practice, meant Willowglass had not established the direction its requested order depended on.

That evidential gap did not prove the circular could never affect employers’ behaviour. It meant only that the record did not establish an instruction to change checks now. Even a narrowly framed remedy required a proven basis; its limited scope could not itself justify relief.

The Secretary’s position had documentary support to a limited extent. The circular preserved existing checks, while the ministerial announcement created no new immigration entitlement. Neither document, however, fully explained how employers were expected to apply the circular.

The court gave less weight to the Secretary’s accounts relayed through counsel than it would have given to a contemporaneous agency record. No separate practical-application record was identified. That left uncertainty, but did not transfer Willowglass’s burden of proving the basis for its claim.

Willowglass argued that asking employers to prepare for acceptance without sponsorship read as a present instruction to change practice before any new authority had been identified. It sought no order against political discussion or properly authorised future policy.

The company accepted that the circular did not expressly cancel existing checks. It also acknowledged having no separate evidence that employers had changed checks or received additional instructions in practice.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department, Eleanor Whitcombe, maintained that preparing for a possibility was not implementing a change. Her account acknowledged that the wording could have been clearer and that its practical application would require investigation.

The ministerial announcement of 25 October 2026 called for renewed debate and examination of negotiating options. It announced neither an agreement nor a new immigration entitlement. The employer circular’s authenticity was not materially disputed; its meaning was.

The decision resolves only the claim on the evidence presented. It does not determine the effect of a later notice, a new entitlement or subsequently proven practical application of the circular.