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

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

DWF—Ian Plumley

DWF—Ian Plumley

Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
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
back-to-top-scroll