Digital payslips: What employers need to know following the Royal Mail ruling 

A recent decision from the Employment Appeal Tribunal has confirmed that employers can lawfully move to digital-only payslips without breaching the statutory right of employees to receive an itemised pay statement. The ruling in Leedham v Royal Mail Group Limited [2026] EAT 87 provides welcome clarity for businesses that have already made the switch or are considering doing so, but it also contains an important warning that digital provision will only hold up if it is genuinely accessible in practice. 

What the law requires 

Under section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, every worker has the right to be given a written, itemised pay statement at or before the point at which wages or salary are paid. The statement must show gross pay, any variable or fixed deductions, and the net amount payable. Until now, there had been limited appellate guidance on whether the word “given” in that provision required an employer to physically hand over a paper document, or whether making payslip information available electronically was sufficient. 

What happened in this case 

Royal Mail had provided paper payslips to its workforce until May 2023. In April of that year, it notified employees that from June 2023 payslips would be issued exclusively in digital form, accessible either through a dedicated People App or via a web browser. Paper payslips were retained only for those with a disability or medical condition preventing digital access. 

One employee, Mr Leedham, stopped receiving paper payslips from June 2023 and did not access his payslips electronically, even though he owned a smartphone capable of doing so and accepted that he could also use free public facilities, including a local library, to view and print them. He brought a claim in the employment tribunal, arguing that Royal Mail had breached his right under section 8 by moving to a digital-only system. 

The tribunal dismissed his claim, finding that the word “given” was not limited to physical delivery and that the statutory purpose had been met by making the information available electronically in a readable and accessible form. Mr Leedham appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. 

The EAT’s decision 

The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Applying a purposive approach to statutory interpretation, His Honour Judge Beard held that the purpose of section 8 is to secure transparency in pay: to enable a worker to understand, in an intelligible and reasonably accessible form, how their remuneration has been calculated and whether any deductions have been made. The question is not whether a document has been physically handed over, but whether the employer has provided the relevant information in a way that enables the worker to scrutinise it and, if necessary, challenge it. 

On that analysis, digital payslip systems can satisfy section 8 in principle. There is no requirement for physical transfer. What matters is substance over form. 

On the facts of the case, Royal Mail’s system was found to comply. The system was free at the point of use. Mr Leedham had the means to access his payslips but chose not to. There was no finding of coercion, no cost imposed on the employee, and no practical impediment to access. The EAT also rejected the argument that requiring an employee to use a smartphone was in itself an unlawful condition: in modern conditions, using such technology is no more than an ordinary feature of everyday communication, analogous in principle to the expectation that a worker would have a letterbox to receive post. 

Where employers could still fall short 

The EAT was careful to emphasise that compliance is fact-sensitive and that the outcome in this case turned on its specific findings. A digital system will not automatically satisfy section 8 in every situation. If a system imposes genuine barriers on an individual worker, whether through cost, technical obstacles or other constraints, the statutory purpose may not be met. Similarly, a system that requires an employee to take on obligations going beyond what is reasonably incidental to receiving their payslip could fall short. 

The judgment also flags a potential issue that was not resolved in this case: privacy. Where an employer’s digital payslip system involves the tracking or extraction of data from an employee’s personal device, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning the right to respect for private life, may be engaged. The EAT was not asked to rule on this point and declined to do so without the relevant findings of fact, but it made clear that such concerns are capable of affecting the outcome in an appropriate case. Employers whose payslip app collects or processes data from personal devices would be wise to take this observation seriously. 

What this means for employers 

For employers who have already moved to digital payslips, the judgment is reassuring. A well-designed system that gives employees genuine, barrier-free access to their pay information at no cost to them is likely to meet the requirements of section 8. The key questions to ask are whether every employee can realistically access the system, whether any individuals face specific difficulties that would require an alternative arrangement, and whether the technology used raises any data privacy concerns in relation to personal devices. 

For employers still considering the transition, the case reinforces that digital provision is legally sound in principle, but that the implementation matters. Communicating the change clearly, catering for employees who cannot access digital systems for medical or other reasons, and being alert to the privacy implications of app-based systems are all steps that should be part of any migration plan. 

The Coodes employment team advises employers on all aspects of payroll compliance, digital working practices and the employment implications of technological change. If you would like to discuss what this ruling means for your business, please get in touch. 

About the Author: Steph Marsh is the Head of the Employment Law team at Coodes Solicitors. She has extensive experience in supporting both employers and employees on contentious and non-contentious matters, particularly surrounding discrimination issues, redundancy situations and data protection law. 

Get in touch: steph.marsh@coodes.co.uk  01579 324 017