header-logo header-logo

17 September 2015
Issue: 7668 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Travelling tradesmen victory

ECJ decides that travelling time is working time

Time spent by carers or tradesmen travelling to their first client and back from their final client counts towards the 48-hour working week, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has held.

The case, brought by burglar alarm and security equipment installers, Tyco, in Spain, involved workers with no office base who travelled each day from their own home to customers’ homes or workplaces. The court held that, where workers have no fixed place of work and use a company vehicle, their travelling time to and from work and between clients should be included in the definition of “working time”.

The ruling, (Case C-266/14), applies automatically in the UK, but does not directly affect pay.

Makbool Javaid, partner at Simons Muirhead and Burton, says: “This is a landmark ruling by the ECJ which further clarifies the meaning of working time.

“It has significant practical implications for employers who have workers with no fixed place of work and whose duties require them to visit the clients’ premises.

“Those employers paying the national minimum wage (NMW) should seek legal advice to thoroughly analyse the working practices and determine the statutory position under the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015, which appears to suggest that such travelling time does not count towards the NMW.”

Ivor Adair, employment lawyer at Slater and Gordon, says: “The decision will have an immediate effect on UK law. It is most obviously beneficial to UK mobile workers, such as electrical fitters or peripatetic care staff, in that the time spent travelling from home to their first appointment of the day, and back home from their last appointment of the day, will now be classified as working time.”

Issue: 7668 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll