Case 1801012/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Shillito (Commercial non legal representative) For the v Mr H Singh Operations Manager — 2023
- Case reference
- 1801012/2023
- Decision date
- 13 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Neill Appearance
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Shillito (Commercial non legal representative) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs K Taylor and Ms P Walton were care workers for Lotus Care Home Ltd. At the hearing they withdrew three claims: alleged breaches of the National Minimum Wage Regulations and/or unauthorised deduction from wages about travel time between home and assignments, alleged failure to reimburse uniform/DBS/training costs, and alleged failure to pay a pandemic bonus. Those claims were dismissed on withdrawal.
On the remaining wages issue, the tribunal accepted Mr Singh's evidence that the travel payment was paid through payroll to all staff, taxed, and accounted for to HMRC. It held that the deduction of tax from that payment was an excepted deduction under section 14 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, not an unauthorised deduction from wages. On the separate National Minimum Wage claim, the tribunal accepted the respondent's schedules and found the pay reference period was the month ending on the 24th; on the figures for July to October 2022 the pay divided by working time remained above the National Minimum Wage for both claimants, so that claim failed.
The holiday claims also failed. For the 2022 leave year, the tribunal accepted the respondent's calculations of average daily holiday pay at £105.20 for Mrs Taylor and £71.64 for Ms Walton, and found that each claimant had already received holiday pay equivalent to 23.3 days after taking into account later payments made in March and April 2023. The tribunal therefore found no further compensation was due for holiday accrued but not taken at termination.
As to holiday years before 1 January 2022, the tribunal found there was no evidence that either claimant had raised a complaint or grievance during employment about refused holiday, and no contemporaneous evidence that requests for leave had been refused. It accepted Mr Singh's evidence that there was no policy preventing December leave, noted the contract did not permit carry-over, and held that any claim for denied holiday was in any event out of time. The result was that all remaining claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Withdrawn claim for alleged breach of the National Minimum Wage Regulations and/or unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of travel time between home and the first assignment and from the last assignment to home. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Withdrawn claim for failure to reimburse the cost of uniform, DBS checks and training; the claimants acknowledged these sums had been paid. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Withdrawn claim for failure to pay the pandemic bonus; the claimants acknowledged the £500 bonus had been paid. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | Claim for underpayment of wages under the National Minimum Wage Regulations in relation to time spent on assignments and travel payments between assignments. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim that tax deducted from the travel payment was an unauthorised deduction; the tribunal held it was an excepted deduction under section 14 ERA 1996 and made in good faith. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Employment Rights Act 1996 section 14
- Working Time Regulations 1998 regulation 13(9)
- National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015
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.