A Chinese national who says he was beaten, threatened, and underpaid while working in Lancashire and elsewhere in the UK has won the right to continue a High Court challenge against a Home Office decision that he was not a victim of human trafficking.
The man, identified only as LBZ in court documents, has been living in the UK since 2018 and claims he was exploited while working in kitchens and on construction sites in locations including Lancaster, Manchester, and Edinburgh.
In a judgment published by the High Court, Mr Justice Sheldon ruled that parts of LBZ's challenge can proceed to a full hearing, although he rejected a wider attack on government guidance used to assess trafficking claims.
The case centres on a Home Office decision made in October 2025, which concluded there were not reasonable grounds to believe LBZ was a victim of trafficking.
Court documents show officials accepted much of LBZ's account of what happened to him after he arrived in the UK on a visit visa.
The decision recorded that he had worked in kitchens and construction, struggled to find enough food and lived in accommodation linked to his employers. It also accepted his claims that he was physically abused by bosses and co-workers, sometimes not paid for work and, on occasions, paid less than he was owed.
According to the judgment, LBZ said he was pushed against walls, struck with objects and threatened during his time working in the UK.
The Home Office accepted that elements of the trafficking definition relating to "action" and "means" were met, but concluded the required element of "purpose" was not established.
Officials found that LBZ had entered jobs of his own free will, was able to leave them, and that disputes over pay and poor treatment did not amount to modern slavery or trafficking.
The decision stated that while he was vulnerable and had ongoing medical issues, there was no indication any threats or abuse had been used to force him to work.
LBZ subsequently brought judicial review proceedings against the Home Office.
Read more
-
Thug who rioted after Southport attack jailed for controlling and abusing ex-partner
-
WATCH - Police release more shocking footage of dangerous driver on M65
-
Six arrests made in 24 hours as police use targeted patrols across Lancashire
His lawyers argued the government had adopted an overly restrictive approach to the definition of trafficking and had failed to properly consider evidence in his case, including material concerning his vulnerability and alleged exploitation.
In his ruling, Mr Justice Sheldon rejected the broader argument that the Home Office's statutory guidance was unlawful. He found the guidance accurately reflected the legal framework governing trafficking and forced labour cases.
However, the judge said it was arguable that the guidance and legal tests may have been applied incorrectly to the specific facts of LBZ's case.
As a result, he granted permission for LBZ to continue pursuing three grounds of challenge, including claims that relevant evidence was not properly taken into account and that the Home Office may have failed to meet its obligations under Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The judgment does not determine whether LBZ was a victim of trafficking. That question is expected to be considered at a future substantive hearing, for which no date has yet been set.
Share