The Licensing Sub-Committee of Kensington and Chelsea Council met on Thursday 10 September 2026 to consider a review application for the premises licence of Phat Phuc Noodle Bar. The Home Office applied for the review on the grounds of the prevention of crime and disorder, citing evidence of illegal working at the premises. The committee heard evidence and submissions regarding the application.

Review of Premises Licence for Phat Phuc Noodle Bar

The Licensing Sub-Committee considered an application by the Home Office Immigration Enforcement to review the premises licence of Phat Phuc Noodle Bar, located at 250 King's Road, London, SW3 5UE. The grounds for the review were the prevention of crime and disorder, specifically alleging that illegal working had been identified at the premises.

During an enforcement visit on 19 June 2025, Immigration Enforcement officers encountered eleven individuals at the Phat Phuc Noodle Bar. Seven of these individuals were identified as working illegally in the UK. The Home Office presented evidence that these individuals were working in various roles, including customer-facing positions and kitchen-based duties, and that their immigration status was either unlawful, had been overstayed, or was in breach of visa conditions.

The Home Office argued that the employment of seven illegal workers indicated a significant failure in management and a systemic disregard for immigration laws. They highlighted that several individuals had informed the employer, Mr Joo Kwong Yeow, that they did not have permission to work in the UK, yet were still offered employment. Furthermore, the evidence suggested a failure to conduct compliant right-to-work checks, with some workers reporting that only informal or inadequate checks were performed. Many were paid in cash, not registered on payroll, and did not pay tax or National Insurance contributions.

The Home Office contended that this situation fundamentally undermined the licensing objective of preventing crime and disorder. They requested the revocation of the premises licence, arguing that a less severe measure would be insufficient as a deterrent.

The premises licence holder, Mr Joo Kwong Yeow, was the subject of an interview where he stated that employment at the premises was informal, with no written contracts. He claimed that right-to-work checks were conducted by requesting and retaining photocopies of documentation, but his account was described as inconsistent and lacking in detail.

The committee considered the evidence presented by the Home Office, including detailed accounts from the individuals found to be working illegally and the employer's interview. They also reviewed the premises licence history and relevant guidance from the Secretary of State.

Outcome: The committee heard evidence and submissions concerning the review application. The full details of the review application and supporting evidence can be found in the Public reports pack.