Tax and deductions from pay
In McKenzie-Bayliss v The Crown Prosecution Service, an employment tribunal held that a homeworking employee who relocated to North-East England but carried out work for the South-East region was no longer entitled to receive pay at the London rate.
In Badara v Pulse Healthcare Ltd, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the employer should not have relied solely on negative Home Office checks when it dismissed the employee for failing to provide right to work documentation.
In Agarwal v Cardiff University and another; Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive t/a Nexus v Anderson and others, the Court of Appeal held that employment tribunals have jurisdiction to construe contractual terms in the context of a claim for unlawful deductions from wages.
In Hartley and others v King Edward VI College  IRLR 763 SC, the Supreme Court held that, when deducting pay from employees' wages in respect of their participation in strike action on the relevant days, the appropriate daily rate of deduction was one-365th of the employees' annual salary, rather than one-260th as had been applied by the employer.
Chris Cook is partner and Keely Rushmore senior associate at SA Law. They round up the latest rulings.
The Supreme Court has held that the pay of teachers must be deducted at a daily rate of 1/365th of their annual salary, rather than 1/260th, for a one-day strike.
A claimant who brought a groundbreaking caste discrimination case has been awarded £183,774 for unlawful deductions from wages, with further compensation to come for race discrimination.
In DLA Piper's latest case report, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered that national minimum wage legislation is not breached when a deduction is made on termination for the repayment of the cost of a training course if the worker is responsible for the termination of his or her employment (typically, by resigning).
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that, where an employee's pay for a period is reduced to recover an overpayment for a previous period, that reduction represents a deduction that should be identified on the employee's payslip.
David Malamatenios is a partner and Krishna Santra, Sandra Martins and Colin Makin are senior associates at Colman Coyle Solicitors. They round up the latest rulings.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to tax and deductions from pay.
XpertHR® is part of the LexisNexis® Risk Solutions portfolio of brands.
The materials and information included in the XpertHR service are provided for reference purposes only. They are not intended either as a substitute for professional advice or judgment or to provide legal or other advice with respect to particular circumstances. Use of the service is subject to our terms and conditions.
Copyright © 2023 LexisNexis Risk Solutions
© 2023 LexisNexis Risk Solutions.