Summary

In Commissioners for HMRC v Taylors Services Ltd (dissolved) and ors, the Court of Appeal has confirmed that time spent travelling from home to various work sites is not ‘time work’ for National Minimum Wage (NMW) purposes under the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015. The case reinforces that HMRC and courts must interpret the NMW Regulations holistically, particularly in relation to the interplay between Regulation 30 (defining 'time work') and Regulation 34 (which deems certain travel time as 'time work'). The decision provides important clarification for employers with mobile workforces but also highlights the ongoing complexity of NMW compliance.

Key facts

Taylors Services Ltd (TS Ltd) engaged poultry workers on zero-hours contracts and deployed them to farms across the country. The employer arranged minibus transport that collected workers directly from their homes and drove them to the site of their first assignment. Some journeys could last up to eight hours. For most of the period, travel time was paid at £2.50/hour under the contract. HMRC later concluded that the time should have been paid at NMW rates and issued Notices of Underpayment totalling approximately £62,000. TS Ltd appealed the matter to the Tribunal. 

The Employment Tribunal upheld HMRC’s position on the basis that the level of control exercised by TS Ltd over the workers' travel made it ‘time work’ under Reg 30.

TS Ltd appealed to the EAT, and the matter was subsequently heard by the Court of Appeal - both of which found in favour of the employer.

Legal principles

The case turned on the proper interpretation of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015, particularly:

• Regulation 30: Sets out the basic definition of 'time work' as work for which a worker is paid by reference to the time worked.
• Regulation 34: Identifies certain types of travel that are treated as ‘time work’, provided two criteria are met:
  1. The travel is for the purposes of time work; and
  2. The worker would otherwise be working during that time.

However, Regulation 34 explicitly excludes travel between a worker’s home and a place of work.

The Court of Appeal held that these provisions must be interpreted together. Regulation 34 serves to limit what kinds of travel can fall within the scope of ‘time work’ under Regulation 30. Even though TS Ltd dictated the logistics of the travel, the workers were not otherwise working during those journeys and were travelling from home to a work site, thus falling within the exception in Regulation 34.

While acknowledging that the outcome may feel unjust in light of the burdens placed on workers, the court noted that remedying such anomalies is a matter for Parliament.

Conclusion and implications

This case provides helpful clarity on a specific aspect of NMW compliance, namely, the status of home-to-site travel time for mobile workers. However, it also highlights the broader complexity of the NMW regime. Even well-intentioned employers with considered pay structures can fall foul of the rules, particularly where travel, waiting time, or travel expenses are involved.

With the establishment of the Fair Work Enforcement Agency expected in 2026, and a likely uptick in enforcement activity and NMW inspections in the run-up, now is the time for employers to ensure their house is in order.

Next steps

We strongly recommend conducting a proactive audit of pay practices, especially for roles involving variable hours, on-call time, or travel between sites. Our team has substantial experience in assisting employers with NMW audits and in responding to HMRC inspections and enforcement notices. 

If you would like to discuss a review of your pay arrangements, please contact me.