Case 1604428/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Kinyenze v Saanie Medical Services Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1604428/2024
- Decision date
- 28 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leith Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Kinyenze
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Leith, sitting alone at Cardiff (via CVP) on 19 March 2025, heard the Claimant's complaints of unauthorised deduction from wages and failure to pay accrued but untaken holiday pay against Saanie Medical Services Limited. The Claimant had commenced employment on 6 October 2023 in the Respondent's Domiciliary Care Unit on a contract providing for a paid 60 minute lunch break at £10.90 per hour plus £2.10 mileage/travel pay. The Respondent's case was that she transferred to its Agency Unit on 15 November 2023 onto a new contract providing for a salary of £22,425 and an unpaid 60 minute lunch break.
The Tribunal dismissed the unauthorised deduction from wages claim. It found that the Claimant had been paid for the disputed 26-27 September 2024 shifts, that the post-November 2023 contract governed the lunch break entitlement so no further payment was due, and that the deductions made in June-September 2024 (totalling £600) were authorised by the Claimant's WhatsApp message of 1 February 2024 in respect of a loan of £800. Applying s.13(6) ERA 1996, the Judge held that the written consent could not retrospectively authorise deductions in respect of an earlier £2,000 loan, but the deductions actually made fell within the scope of the valid authorisation.
The holiday pay claim succeeded. Applying the formula in regulation 14(3) of the Working Time Regulations 1998, the Judge calculated that the Claimant had accrued 2.8 weeks of leave for the half-year worked from 1 April 2024 to 30 September 2024, with a weekly pay of £431.25, giving a value of £1,207.50. The Judge held there is no provision in the Regulations permitting deduction from accrued but untaken annual leave, and awarded the Claimant that gross sum.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Claim for failure to pay accrued but untaken annual leave on termination succeeded. Tribunal applied the formula in regulation 14(3) of the Working Time Regulations 1998, calculating 2.8 weeks accrued leave at a weekly pay of £431.25 (based on salary of £22,425 / 37.5 hours at £11.50). No deduction permitted from the accrued leave figure under the Regulations. | Upheld | — | £1,208 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Composite unlawful deduction from wages claim covering: (i) pay for shifts on 26-27 September 2024; (ii) payment for lunch breaks following transfer to the Agency Unit on 15 November 2023; (iii) £400 (in fact found to be £600) deducted in June-September 2024 in respect of loan repayments. Tribunal found the Claimant had been paid for 26-27 September, that the post-November 2023 contract provided for an unpaid lunch break, and that the loan deductions were authorised by a WhatsApp message of 1 February 2024 (subject to the s.13(6) ERA 1996 limit that authorisation cannot be retrospective). Complaint dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,208
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
11 references- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13(6) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 25(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- contra proferentum rule
- Agarwal v Cardiff University and anor [2019] ICR 433
- Regulation 13 Working Time Regulations 1998
- Regulation 13A Working Time Regulations 1998
- Regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
- Regulation 16 Working Time Regulations 1998
- sections 221-224 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.