In person For the v Respondent — 2024

The claimant, a Driving Examiner employed by the Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency, brought a claim under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for unlawful deduction from wages, seeking £77.55 in day subsistence payments for 15 occasions between 14 May 2023 and 11 July 2023 when he travelled within his Southampton cluster to Winchester DTC. The respondent had already paid the £77.55 without admission of liability, but the claimant sought a declaration as to entitlement. A jurisdictional issue arose as to whether the disputed sums constituted 'wages' or 'expenses' under section 27.

Employment Judge N J Roper considered section 27(1) and section 27(2)(b) ERA 1996, together with authorities including Barry v Rochdale MBC, Southwark LBC v O'Brien, Qantas Cabin Crew (UK) Ltd v Lopez, Cooney v Southwark CAB, and Smith v Network Rail. The judge held that the day subsistence payments were 'in respect of expenses' within the meaning of s.27(2)(b): the claimant had himself always characterised the claim as one for expenses, had attached receipts to his schedule of loss, and the payments were limited to individual instances of travel rather than being rolled-up sums forming part of wages.

Accordingly, the tribunal concluded that the payments were excluded from the unlawful deduction from wages provisions and that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. The claim was dismissed.