Claimant v Highland Fuels Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the contractual clause relied upon by the respondent (clause 9, relating to vicarious liability for acts or omissions causing third party loss) did not authorise deduction of training costs. Attendance at training courses required for the role could not constitute an act or omission falling within vicarious liability provisions. The contract did not contain a relevant provision authorising such deductions under section 13 ERA 1996.
Facts
The claimant worked as an HGV driver for two months. The respondent paid for his CPC and ADR qualifications, flights, and accommodation (totalling £2,509.80). After the claimant tendered resignation, he was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct (unauthorized use of another employee's passcode to obtain fuel). The respondent deducted the full training costs from his final pay, relying on a contractual clause permitting deductions for vicarious liability to third parties.
Decision
The tribunal held the deduction was unauthorised under section 13 ERA 1996. The contractual clause relied upon related to vicarious liability for delictual acts causing third party loss, which could not encompass training costs. Attendance at required training courses was neither an act/omission nor within vicarious liability provisions. Despite arguments about gross misconduct and alleged dishonesty, the contract did not authorise the deduction made.
Practical note
Employers cannot rely on vicarious liability clauses to recover training costs; contracts must contain explicit, appropriately worded provisions to authorise deductions for training expenses.
Award breakdown
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8001357/2025
- Decision date
- 17 October 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- energy
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- in house
Employment details
- Role
- HGV driver
- Service
- 2 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No