In a pre-dawn emergency hearing on 26 October 2025, Mr Justice Johnson granted an injunction preventing the Home Office from removing a 20-year-old Eritrean refugee from asylum accommodation with only 28 days’ notice. The ruling effectively reinstates a 56-day grace period—or obliges officials to find alternative housing—pending a full judicial review of the policy.
Charities have long argued that the re-imposition of a 28-day ‘move-on’ window in August leaves newly recognised refugees scrambling to secure work, benefits and private accommodation, pushing many into street homelessness. More than 60 NGOs, including the Refugee Council and Crisis, submitted evidence highlighting the knock-on cost to local authorities and employers that suddenly lose workers to precarious living conditions.
For global mobility teams the judgment has two immediate implications. First, employers that hire refugees under the Skilled Worker or Graduate routes could see reduced churn if longer accommodation periods become the norm. Second, the case signals a judicial appetite to test whether new immigration policies comply with equality and human-rights legislation—raising the prospect that other controversial measures (such as tighter ILR timelines) could face similar challenges.
The Home Office maintains that the 28-day limit is necessary to free up asylum housing and reduce overall costs. A spokesperson said the department is “reviewing the ruling and considering next steps,” but stressed that vulnerable groups already qualify for 56 days. Lawyers for the claimant say the decision sets an important precedent for hundreds of refugees issued with eviction notices this autumn.
Charities have long argued that the re-imposition of a 28-day ‘move-on’ window in August leaves newly recognised refugees scrambling to secure work, benefits and private accommodation, pushing many into street homelessness. More than 60 NGOs, including the Refugee Council and Crisis, submitted evidence highlighting the knock-on cost to local authorities and employers that suddenly lose workers to precarious living conditions.
For global mobility teams the judgment has two immediate implications. First, employers that hire refugees under the Skilled Worker or Graduate routes could see reduced churn if longer accommodation periods become the norm. Second, the case signals a judicial appetite to test whether new immigration policies comply with equality and human-rights legislation—raising the prospect that other controversial measures (such as tighter ILR timelines) could face similar challenges.
The Home Office maintains that the 28-day limit is necessary to free up asylum housing and reduce overall costs. A spokesperson said the department is “reviewing the ruling and considering next steps,” but stressed that vulnerable groups already qualify for 56 days. Lawyers for the claimant say the decision sets an important precedent for hundreds of refugees issued with eviction notices this autumn.
