Mr A Smith v Highland Fuels Ltd — 2025

This was a claim by Mr A Smith against Highland Fuels Ltd for unauthorised deductions from wages under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The respondent admitted that it had deducted £2,509.80 from the claimant's pay, but contended that the deduction was authorised by the contract and justified by the circumstances leading to his dismissal.

The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence where there was a factual dispute. It found that the relevant contractual clause permitted deductions for monies paid or payable to a third party for an act or omission by the claimant where the respondent might be vicariously liable, but it did not cover the respondent's expenditure on the claimant's training, travel and accommodation for CPC and ADR qualifications. The tribunal held that attending training courses was not an act or omission for the purpose of the clause, and could not fall within vicarious liability. It said that if an employer wished to recover training costs in this way, the contract needed to say so.

The respondent also relied on arguments about gross misconduct, alleged dishonesty, and the claimant's resignation and subsequent employment, but the tribunal said those matters did not answer the section 13 issue. It noted that the respondent had decided to pay the notice period and could not then rely on that decision to justify the deduction. The tribunal therefore found that Highland Fuels Ltd made an unauthorised deduction from wages and awarded the claimant £2,509.80, subject to any necessary statutory deductions.