Mr P Cusick v T J Morris Limited t/a Home Bargains — 2021

Mr Cusick was employed as a Class 1 LGV driver. After a 21 January 2020 conviction for careless driving, the magistrates court imposed a 12-month driving disqualification on 18 February 2020. On 26 March 2020 the Crown Court suspended that disqualification pending appeal, and the claimant sent the resulting court and DVLA paperwork to the respondent. Although the DVLA record was later updated and the claimant’s appeal ultimately succeeded on 29 July 2020, the respondent and its insurer continued to rely on the Licence Bureau/DVLA position for some time and did not allow him to resume driving straightaway. During the disputed period he was placed first on annual leave, then unpaid leave, and later did training and work as a night loader at a lower rate of pay before returning to driving on 21 August 2020.

The Tribunal held that clause 22 of the contract required the claimant to hold and maintain a current full driving licence, and to observe the provisions of any insurance policy relating to the vehicle, but it did not make the claimant himself responsible for being insured in the way contended for by the respondent. The Tribunal accepted that some implied requirement to be insured to drive existed, but it found that this did not give the respondent a contractual right to suspend him without pay in the circumstances. It also noted comparator evidence of other drivers being moved into alternative roles, which undermined any suggested implied term permitting unpaid suspension. The claimant was found to have been ready and willing to work, and from 26 March 2020 he had a valid licence pending appeal.

Applying section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the authorities discussed, including Gregg, the Tribunal concluded that the respondent had no express or implied contractual right to withhold his driver’s wages while the insurer remained unconvinced by the documents produced. The insurer’s position was a matter between the insurer and the respondent and did not alter what was properly payable under the employment contract. The shortfall in payment therefore amounted to unauthorised deductions from wages, and the claim succeeded. Remedy was not assessed in this judgment; the Tribunal reserved the question of quantum and asked the parties to indicate how they wished to proceed.