The Respondent, a telemarketing business, received "notices of underpayments" on the basis that it was considered to be underpaying workers. It appealed against the notices, and the ET found in its favour in relation to deductions for accommodation costs (called "the accommodation offset") but found against it in respect of a further issue relating to the recruitment and training costs for workers. The Appellant appealed against the accommodation offset decision, arguing that the ET had erred in determining that the accommodation was not provided by the Respondent and so the relevant NMW legislation was not engaged; and the Respondent cross-appealed in respect of the training costs decision, contending that the ET had misinterpreted the legislation and had erred in determining that it applied to these deductions.

The EAT held that the ET was correct to decide that the accommodation was not provided by the Respondent as "employer", and so the deductions did not fall to be treated as reducing the amount of pay for NMW purposes; as regards the cross-appeal, the EAT was satisfied that the ET did not err in concluding that the deductions in respect of training costs were caught by the relevant NMW legislation, and so they were to be treated as reductions in pay during the pay reference period.