In a judgment handed down on Friday 9 July 2021, the Supreme Court confirmed that refusing awards of compensation, under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (CICS), to applicants with unspent criminal convictions was lawful. The Appellants in this matter did not contend that their criminal convictions arose from their having been trafficked. The convictions occurred before their trafficking and subsequent exploitation. As such, the Supreme Court did not go on to determine the position where a victim asserts that they were compelled to commit a crime but has been unable to use the non-punishment provisions.

Three ATLEU clients have been awarded significant damages in a compensation claim against their former employer, Hick Lane Bedding Ltd. In a judgment handed down on Tuesday 9 March 2021, the High Court Queen’s Bench Division awarded damages in excess of £700,000 for what it described as an ‘egregious example of modern slavery’.

ATLEU has successfully challenged the family worker exemption contained within the National Minimum Wage Regulations. Under the exemption, live-in domestic workers were not entitled to receive the national minimum wage if treated as a member of the family’.

Our client (P), was exited from NRM support following receipt of a positive conclusive grounds (CG) decision. He had not received NRM support for over a year.

In a judgment handed down on Wednesday 18 March 2020, the UK Supreme Court allowed the appeal of MS (Pakistan) v SSHD, overturned the Court of Appeal's judgment, and reinstated his successful appeal before the Upper Tribunal. This is a great result for victims of trafficking, ATLEU and the intervenors in the case.

A victim was awarded over a quarter of a million pounds in damages from her trafficker, in one of the first cases of its kind.

Sadly, in a judgment handed down on 23 March 2018, the Court of Appeal has overturned the ground-breaking decision of the Upper Tribunal (IAC) in MS (Pakistan).

The Supreme Court concludes that the State Immunity Act is unlawful since it prevents all employees of foreign embassies bringing claims for compensation against employer states regardless of the nature of the employee’s work.

The Supreme Court found that a diplomat who employed a domestic worker could not be said to have acted within their “official functions” with the result that the Saudi diplomat defendants in the case had lost any immunity from suit the moment they ceased to be in post.

H was a victim of trafficking, and brought proceedings against the respondents before the employment tribunal in relation to their alleged role in her trafficking. The respondents were acquitted of trafficking-related offences in criminal trials and, on that basis, applied to the tribunal for deposit orders against H.

A victim of trafficking is entitled under the Trafficking Directive 2011/36/EU/to legal aid in legal proceedings. Accordingly, a tribunal erred in law when it failed to grant a postponement of a merits hearing to permit the Claimant to access legal aid. A victim of trafficking has a right in EU law to legal aid and the courts and tribunals must give effect to this.

In a strongly worded judgment, The Hon. Mr Justice McCloskey, President and Upper Tribunal Judge Blum held that the tribunal has jurisdiction to make their own decision on whether an appellant is a victim of trafficking and to consider if a negative trafficking decision has been reached in breach of the Secretary of State’s policy guidance.