Dismissed after visa sponsorship became impossible: Home Office rule change was 'some other substantial reason'
A tribunal has ruled that Fintru Limited fairly dismissed an associate whose skilled worker visa could not be renewed after the Home Office raised salary thresholds. The employer explored alternatives and followed a reasonable process.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #skilled-worker-visa
- #home-office-salary-threshold
- #some-other-substantial-reason
- #transitional-arrangements
- #immigration-advice
Key facts
- The Claimant was employed as an associate from 6 December 2021 to 16 April 2025.
- In April 2024, the Home Office increased salary thresholds for sponsored workers, and transitional arrangements applied a 25% uplift to previous rates.
- The Claimant's salary did not meet the transitional threshold, making him ineligible for continued sponsorship after April 2025.
- The Respondent explored options including visa extension, relocation to Ireland, and salary adjustments, but none were viable.
- The Respondent dismissed the Claimant on 16 April 2025 due to expiry of his right to work and inability to sponsor him.
- The Tribunal found the dismissal was for a potentially fair reason (some other substantial reason) and the process was reasonable.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as an associate at Fintru Limited.
-
Home Office salary threshold changes
Home Office significantly increased salary thresholds for sponsored workers, with transitional arrangements applying a 25% uplift to previous rates.
-
Respondent emailed Claimant about visa
Respondent emailed Claimant requesting steps to extend permission to work before visa expiry.
-
Respondent consulted immigration experts
Respondent made enquiries with Smith Stone Walters about Claimant's immigration status.
-
First meeting about visa options
Claimant met with HR and mobility specialists to discuss visa expiry and options.
-
Second meeting with immigration experts
Further meeting with Smith Stone Walters to explore options including relocation to Ireland.
-
Third meeting
Meeting to discuss options; Claimant declined relocation to Ireland.
-
Respondent emailed potential visa extension option
Respondent set out option to extend visa to September 2025 at cost of £4,499.90.
-
Invitation to formal meeting
Claimant invited to formal meeting to discuss visa expiry and impact of Home Office changes.
-
Formal meeting held
Meeting with Eddie Vandivar, Krissy Smyth, and Orla Flanagan; options discussed including forgoing bonuses and relocation.
-
Dismissal letter sent
Claimant informed by letter that employment would terminate on 16 April 2025.
-
Home Office letter to Claimant
Claimant received letter from Home Office stating that those already in the route should not be dismissed based on new median rates.
-
Claimant appealed dismissal
Claimant exercised right to appeal.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal hearing conducted by Jamie Foote, Executive Director; original decision upheld.
-
Employment terminated
Claimant's employment ended due to expiry of right to work.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal of the claimant due to expiry of his right to work and inability to continue sponsorship was fair under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, specifically whether it was for a potentially fair reason (some other substantial reason) and whether the employer acted reasonably.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim of unfair dismissal.
The key reasons were:
- The Home Office salary threshold changes in April 2024 meant the claimant no longer met the eligibility criteria for a skilled worker visa, making continued sponsorship impossible.
- The employer explored all viable options including visa extension, relocation to Ireland, and salary adjustments, but none were feasible.
- The dismissal was for 'some other substantial reason' (SOSR), a potentially fair reason, and the process including meetings, consultation, and an appeal was within the range of reasonable responses.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If your right to work expires due to government policy changes outside your employer's control, a dismissal may still be fair if the employer explores alternatives and follows a fair process.
- Employers should act promptly once they become aware of immigration issues, document all options considered, and give the employee a chance to respond before dismissing.
- A letter from the Home Office stating that workers should not be dismissed based on new thresholds does not override the employer's legal obligation to ensure the employee has a valid right to work.
- Employees in this situation should consider seeking independent immigration advice early, as the employer's duty is limited to what is reasonable, not to guarantee continued employment.
When a visa becomes impossible to renew
This case shows what happens when an employee's right to work in the UK is cut short by a change in government policy that neither side could control. The claimant, an associate at Fintru Limited, had been on a skilled worker visa since 2023. In April 2024, the Home Office raised salary thresholds for sponsored workers, and even with transitional arrangements, the claimant's salary no longer met the required level.
The employer did not dismiss the claimant immediately. Over several months, it held meetings, consulted immigration experts, and explored options including a short visa extension, relocation to Ireland, and salary adjustments. The claimant declined relocation, and the other options were not viable. When the visa expired in April 2025, the employer dismissed him.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal found that the dismissal was for 'some other substantial reason' (SOSR) – a potentially fair reason under employment law. It then applied the 'band of reasonable responses' test to the employer's actions. The tribunal noted that the employer had acted promptly once the issue became clear, had given the claimant a chance to put forward alternatives, and had conducted an appeal. The process was not perfect, but it was within the range that a reasonable employer could have followed.
The claimant argued that a Home Office letter dated March 2025 suggested no one should be dismissed based on the new thresholds. However, the tribunal pointed out that the employer still had a legal duty to ensure the claimant had a valid right to work, and the letter did not override that obligation.
What this means for similar cases
For employees on skilled worker visas, this case is a reminder that a change in immigration rules can lead to a fair dismissal if the employer handles it properly. The key is whether the employer genuinely explored alternatives and followed a fair process. For employers, the lesson is to act early, document everything, and give the employee a real opportunity to be heard. A dismissal that seems harsh may still be fair if the employer can show it acted reasonably in impossible circumstances.
Similar cases
Dismissed by father after family breakdown: WhatsApp message found to be unfair dismissal
A father who told his daughter 'I don't have a job for you, in fact I hope I never see u again' in a WhatsApp message was found to have unfairly dismissed her. The tribunal awarded £13,977.58.
Shouting at the boss: dismissal for irretrievable breakdown of trust upheld
A married couple who worked as wedding events and facilities managers were fairly dismissed after a heated meeting where the husband shouted at the company owner. The tribunal rejected claims of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and whistleblowing detriment.
Relocation dismissal: employer acted reasonably after failed transfer attempts
A sales assistant who relocated from Milton Keynes to Bournemouth was fairly dismissed after H&M tried but failed to find her a suitable transfer. The tribunal rejected her unfair dismissal claim.
Locum consultant's fixed-term contract not renewed: workforce review justified dismissal
An employment tribunal has ruled that an NHS trust fairly dismissed a locum consultant when it decided to recruit only substantive Consultants on the Specialist Register, ending the need for locum cover.