Case 1801186/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Smith v Fowler Sandford LLP — 2024
- Case reference
- 1801186/2024
- Decision date
- 29 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T Knowles Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant claimed payment in lieu of accrued but untaken holiday pay on termination, relying on breach of contract and the Working Time Regulations 1998. The tribunal found that the claimant had previously been permitted to carry forward leave in one year, but that the evidence did not establish any enduring agreement or implied contractual term allowing carry forward generally.
For the Working Time Regulations claim, the tribunal concluded that the claimant had not shown circumstances that would trigger statutory carry forward. It found that untaken leave from previous years was lost under the use it or lose it position, and dismissed both claims as not well founded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the breach of contract claim for payment in lieu of accrued but untaken holiday pay was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The tribunal found the Working Time Regulations 1998 claim for payment in lieu of accrued but untaken holiday pay was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Regulation 13(9)(a) Working Time Regulations 1998
- reasonable, notorious and certain
- Devonald v Rosser and Sons
- Sagar v H Ridehalgh and Son Ltd
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.