Case 3332111/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs — 2019
- Case reference
- 3332111/2018
- Decision date
- 20 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge King Appearances
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningGreene King appealed against four HMRC notices of underpayment concerning 191 general managers for the period 31 March 2014 to 26 March 2017. The alleged shortfall arose solely from HMRC rejecting Greene King's use of the national minimum wage accommodation offset for flats provided to general managers above pubs.
The tribunal held that the words "living accommodation" in the National Minimum Wage Regulations should be given their everyday meaning. It found that accommodation capable of being lived in, providing shelter, access to sanitation facilities and services, could qualify; the provision of a bed was not a decisive requirement.
Applying that interpretation to the three sample cases, the tribunal found that the flats were clearly living accommodation. They were self-contained, used as homes, had kitchens, bathrooms, utilities and sufficient living space. The tribunal concluded that the accommodation offset was applicable, Greene King had not paid the workers below the national minimum wage, and the notices and penalties should not have been issued.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Employer appeal against four National Minimum Wage Act 1998 notices of underpayment. The appeal was allowed and the notices were rescinded under s.19C(7). | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.19C(7) National Minimum Wage Act 1998
- s.28 National Minimum Wage Act 1998 reversal of burden of proof
- Article 6(2) European Convention on Human Rights
- regulations 9(1)(e) and 16 National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015
- purposive approach to statutory interpretation
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.