Case 2203464/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Ms K Zakrzewska, litigation consultant — 2020
- Case reference
- 2203464/2020
- Decision date
- 8 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Joffe
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr G Lawson was employed by OfficeServe Limited from 28 May 2019 as a full stack developer. He resigned on 11 March 2020 and gave extended notice to 29 May 2020 so that the respondent could plan for his departure. The respondent accepted that resignation, but after the business was affected by the coronavirus pandemic it told him that his employment would instead end on 8 April 2020, and the claimant maintained that he was entitled to the longer notice period he had given.
The unfair dismissal complaint was withdrawn because the claimant did not have two years' continuous employment. The tribunal therefore recorded that complaint as dismissed on withdrawal. The substantive issues left for decision were whether the respondent had failed to pay accrued but untaken holiday and whether it had breached the contract by not giving the contractual notice period.
On holiday pay, the respondent conceded that the claimant was entitled to 33 days' annual leave, that the three days carried over from 2019 had been taken with permission, and that the day booked on 13 March 2020 should be treated as sick leave because he was ill with flu. The tribunal calculated that 112/356 of the leave year had accrued, equivalent to 10.13 days, and at the agreed net daily rate of £122.29 the amount due was £1,238.80 net. The judgment recorded that this sum was payable under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and under the contract, and also referred to it as recoverable in the alternative as an unlawful deduction from wages.
On notice, the tribunal held that the respondent was in breach of contract in giving notice on 24 March 2020 to expire on 8 April 2020. The claimant was entitled to the balance of his notice period, which the tribunal described as one week and four days, and the parties agreed that the resulting damages were £1,100.61 net. The tribunal also made a preparation time order because it considered the respondent's position on holiday entitlement and backdating notice to have no reasonable prospects of success; it assessed 30 hours at £40 per hour, making £1,200.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant withdrew this claim after it was accepted that he did not have two years' continuous employment; the judgment records the unfair dismissal complaint as dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay accrued but untaken annual leave on termination. It calculated 112/356 of the leave year as accrued, equivalent to 10.13 days, at a net daily rate of £122.29. The judgment also said the same holiday pay was due under the contract and regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, and alternatively as an unlawful deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £1,239 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held the respondent breached the contract by shortening the claimant's notice so that employment ended on 8 April 2020 rather than after the balance of the contractual notice period. Damages were agreed at one week and four days' net pay. | Upheld | — | £1,101 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,539
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 13 ERA 1996
- section 27 ERA 1996
- Greg May (Carpet Fitters and Contractors) Ltd v Dring [1990] ICR 188
- regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998
- rule 76 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 79 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.