丽莎以前就多次提醒过大家：如果您打算在英国开餐厅，或者做任何生意，一定要提前搞清楚相关法律，营业时更要严格守规矩。别以为英国人看上去“好说话”，这边的执法人员一个比一个精，根本逃不过他们的“火眼金睛”。
最近，位于英格兰西米德兰兹郡的一家餐厅就摊上事了，被暂停营业执照两个月——有可能还面临吊销执照。
执法部门突击检查
根据媒体报道，这家名叫Betsy’s X Little Dessert Shop的餐厅，开在斯塔福德郡利奇菲尔德市的博尔街（Bore Street），在当地还算小有名气。不过，最近它却因为一系列违规操作，摊上了不小的事。
按照他们的营业执照规定，这家店每天只能营业到晚上11点。但在过去几个月里，他们屡次违规，尤其是周五、周六的夜晚，经常偷偷营业到凌晨2点，把“夜生活”搞得风生水起。
虽然监管部门曾多次发出口头和书面警告，甚至还请餐厅负责人去警察局“喝了茶”，但该店在接下来的四个月里依旧我行我素，照旧超时营业，完全不把执照当回事。
直到2025年5月，事情彻底爆发——当地执法人员对这家餐厅进行了突击检查，结果一进门就惊了：竟然有8名员工直接住在店里！有的打地铺在仓库，有的干脆拿办公室当卧室，简直是“白天上班、晚上睡店”。
这种情况不仅不合规，更存在严重的火灾风险和人员过度拥挤问题。于是，环境卫生官员当场下达了紧急禁止令（Emergency Prohibition Order），要求所有住店员工立即撤离。
2025年9月8日，当地议会召开了公开听证会，围绕治安问题、公共安全和噪音扰民等方面展开审议。环境卫生官员与警方代表在会上表示，他们对该餐厅的管理层已完全失去信心，并建议直接吊销营业执照。
在听证会上，代表餐厅持照人的律师Duncan Craig提出辩护意见，最终评审小组决定暂停该店营业执照两个月，而并非永久吊销。
此外，餐厅还被增加了有关清洁与垃圾处理的运营条件。当地政府还要求有关部门继续跟进调查是否涉及移民问题或现代奴役行为。
丽莎评论
根据英格兰和威尔士的法律，有一些类型的餐馆在经营前需要向当地政府申请营业执照（Premises Licence），比如说那些出售酒精的或者要在特定时间经营的餐厅。此外，若涉及酒精销售，还必须指定一名指定持照人（Designated Premises Supervisor, DPS）。
取得执照后，餐馆必须严格遵守执照中列明的各项条件，包括：
营业时间：不得超时经营。
用途限制：仅限于获批的经营活动（例如仅限餐饮，不得擅自变更为娱乐场所）。
噪音管理：需避免扰民，必要时需限制音乐播放的时间与音量。
人员管理：所有员工必须具备合法的工作与居留身份。
消防安全措施：应定期检查消防设施，确保疏散通道畅通无阻。
卫生与食品安全：必须遵守《食品安全法》和《食品卫生条例》的相关规定。
若违反上述任一执照条件，轻则可能被警告或限制营业，严重的情况下可能会导致执照被暂停、修改甚至吊销。情节严重的，还可能面临刑事责任。
在本案中，该餐馆的问题不仅仅是多次违反规定的营业时间。他们允许8位员工在餐厅内居住，违反了《许可法》和营业执照的使用规定，还可能涉及其他多项违规。
比如，人员过度拥挤：违反《住房法》的相关规定；存在严重火灾隐患：违反消防安全法规；员工身份存疑：若这8人中有人非法居留，则可能违反《移民法》等等。
目前，当地执法部门还在跟进调查是否涉及移民问题或现代奴役行为。所以，我们还不确定是否涉及以上所说的情况。但是可以肯定的是，一旦查出确实存在非法居留，这家餐厅可能将面临严重的法律后果。
这件事也给广大餐饮经营者，尤其是需要雇用海外员工的店主们敲响了警钟。请一定要遵守许可证要求的内容，如果确实有员工住宿需求，应遵循以下合规方式：
第一，不应在餐厅内提供住宿，除非满足以下条件：
确保物业原本的登记用途是混合用途——可以商民两用的（Mixed Use）；
场所已完成符合住宅用途的改造，并满足建筑及安全标准；
如属多人共住（超过3人），应申请HMO许可（多户住宅许可）
第二，员工住宿应另行安排：
如果有需要，可为员工租用合法住宅或公寓；签订正式租赁协议，确保住宿环境符合最低住房标准。
第三，及时通报与持续整改：
若地方议会或相关执法机构提出整改意见，应积极配合；
定期进行场所安全和合规性检查，防患于未然。
如果您在英国经营商铺并遇到任何法律问题，欢迎随时联系丽莎律师行。我们的商法部门可为您提供专业法律建议，协助您妥善应对各种挑战。
好的，今天的文章就到这边，如果您对于文章内容，或者其他英国法律方面，有任何疑问，都欢迎进一步咨询丽莎律师行。
任何英国税务方面的问题，也可以联系咨询丽莎会计行。
觉得丽莎的文章不错？请不要吝于点赞和转发！您的支持是丽莎继续前进的动力，我们将尽力为莎粉们提供最新最全的实用信息。
> 丽莎律师行 —— 最具国际化视野的英国华人律师行，专精于商业、房产、移民、家庭和诉讼法。<
丽莎律师行联络邮箱：info@lisaslaw.co.uk
联络电话：020 7928 0276
联络微信号：lisaslaw007
扫一扫，《丽莎知道》微信公众号：
![Two recent immigration tribunal decisions have highlighted important points of principle in UK immigration law: the requirement for procedural fairness in decision-making and the legal distinction between a grant of leave and the administrative issuance of a Biometric Residence Permit (BRP).
Both cases demonstrate the need for applicants and their representatives to be vigilant in challenging decisions where the Home Office may have acted outside established legal boundaries.
Namecard for article - Angel Wan in English
Procedural Fairness in Hong Kong BN(O) Applications
In R (KW) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, JR-2024-LON-002169, the Upper Tribunal considered a refusal under the Hong Kong British National (Overseas) route. The applicant, a Chinese national from Hong Kong, had been refused on the basis of a previous conviction. The Home Office gave decisive weight to a Hong Kong Court of Appeal judgment it had located independently online, without putting this material to the applicant for comment.
The Tribunal found this to be a clear breach of procedural fairness, observing that the applicant had effectively been “ambushed” by evidence not disclosed to them.
While the Court of Appeal’s decision in Balajigari v Home Secretary [2019] EWCA Civ 673 was not directly applicable, it was considered a useful authority on fairness in immigration decision-making. The refusal was therefore quashed, and the case must now be reconsidered by the Home Office.
This judgment reinforces that applicants must be given an opportunity to respond to any evidence relied upon by decision-makers. Failure to do so will amount to procedural unfairness, providing strong grounds for judicial review.
The Legal Status of Biometric Residence Permits
The second case, Guerrero (s104(4A); statutory abandonment; right of appeal) [2025] UKUT 00276 (IAC), concerned an asylum seeker who received a refusal decision but was subsequently issued with a BRP stating “Refugee leave to remain.”
The First-tier Tribunal initially ruled that the BRP constituted a grant of leave, thereby treating the pending asylum appeal as abandoned under section 104(4A) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
On appeal, the Upper Tribunal clarified the legal position. A BRP does not in itself grant leave to remain, it is an administrative document that evidences an earlier grant of leave.
Where a BRP is issued in error, no grant of leave arises, and an appeal cannot be deemed abandoned.
The Tribunal also confirmed that decisions to treat appeals as abandoned under section 104(4A) are not “excluded decisions,” and therefore fall within the Upper Tribunal’s jurisdiction to review.
The First-tier Tribunal’s decision was set aside, and the case will be re-heard.
This decision underscores the importance of distinguishing between the substantive grant of leave and the administrative issuance of a BRP. Mistaken issuance of documents cannot override statutory rights of appeal.
Conclusion
Both cases serve as reminders of the importance of legal safeguards in the immigration system when it comes to immigration tribunal decisions. The KW case highlights that applicants must be given a fair opportunity to respond to evidence before adverse decisions are made. The Guerrero case confirms that a BRP is not determinative of immigration status and cannot substitute for an actual grant of leave.
These judgments illustrate the value of expert legal representation in holding the Home Office to account where decision-making falls short of the standards required by law.](https://lisaslaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/AdobeStock_284883829-scaled.jpeg "Gold coin Stack On the table save money Taking care of money - Lisa's Law Solicitors")
