Case 1401781/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Bunny v Vintage Wine Bars Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1401781/2018
- Decision date
- 26 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maxwell Representation
- Venue
- Bodmin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Bunny
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr R Bunny brought a claim for a payment in respect of accrued annual leave. At a hearing in Bodmin on 26 September 2019 before Employment Judge Maxwell, the tribunal dealt with a preliminary issue by consent: whether the claim had been presented within the statutory time limit under the Working Time Regulations 1998. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant, considered documents including a 26 February 2018 email from the respondent and a 27 September 2018 letter from the claimant's counsellor, and heard submissions from both parties.
The parties agreed during cross-examination that any accrued holiday pay due on termination should have been paid on 11 January 2018. On that basis, time began to run on that date. The tribunal found that the ordinary three-month limit would have expired on 10 April 2018, but the claimant entered ACAS early conciliation from 27 February to 10 April 2018, and that 43-day period was excluded by regulation 30B(2). Adding that period extended the deadline to 23 May 2018.
The tribunal held that the claim was presented on 23 May 2018, which was the last day of the permitted period. The judgment therefore resolved the limitation issue in the claimant's favour. No substantive award of holiday pay or other monetary remedy was made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Preliminary limitation issue only. The tribunal held that the claim for a payment in respect of accrued annual leave was presented within time under Working Time Regulations 1998 regulation 30, after excluding the ACAS early conciliation period under regulation 30B. | Upheld | — | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.