I think you are misunderstanding the ruling. And while the headline isn't 100% correct! it is more inline with what everyone is discussing than what you claim i

I think you are misunderstanding the ruling. And while the headline isn't 100% correct! it is more inline with what everyone is discussing than what you claim it is. At one time the employed commuted to a regional office. From there they would travel to the client site. Now the office is closed, the company no longer has an office in the area. Now the employees commute from their home to a client site. Some days it was longer than before, some days shorter. Before the closure, the company paid for commuting from the fixed office to the site. Now it doesn't. The court said it was wrong, and if you are expected to commute from your home to a non fixed point you deserve compensation. The fact that the office closed isn't really important. What is important is there is no fixed office that you commute to first. This is not the case that the new office is further than the old one.