Case 1403737/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr M Liddiard, Director — 2023
- Case reference
- 1403737/2023
- Decision date
- 17 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Robin Verghis Jacob worked for Liddiard Limited as a Store Assistant from 19 March 2022 until 21 January 2023 on a zero-hours contract. The tribunal preferred the respondent's shift summary and the claimant's final payslip dated 10 February 2023, and found that the claimant's last working day was 21 January 2023 rather than 17 December 2022. It also found that no holiday had been taken and that the claimant had not been paid in lieu of accrued but untaken holiday.
Applying Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, the tribunal calculated continuous employment of 43 weeks, giving accrued holiday entitlement of 4.63 weeks, or 24 days when rounded up for a five-day week. Using an average weekly pay of £152.19 and a daily rate of £30.44, the tribunal calculated the accrued holiday pay due as £730.56.
On limitation, the tribunal held under Regulation 30(2)(a) that time ran from 10 February 2023, the date the payment should have been made with the final payslip, rather than from the termination of employment. It found that the normal three-month time limit expired during the ACAS early conciliation period and was extended to 6 July 2023 under section 207B, so the claim presented on 14 June 2023 was within time. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant the gross sum of £730.56.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Claim for accrued but unpaid holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations 1998 and s.13 ERA 1996; tribunal held the claim was in time because payment should have been made on 10 February 2023 and the ACAS early conciliation period extended limitation. | Upheld | — | £731 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £731
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- Regulation 14 WTR 1998
- Regulation 30(2)(a) WTR 1998
- s.23(2) ERA 1996
- s.207B ERA 1996
- Luton Borough Council v Haque [2018] ICR 1388 EAT
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.
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.