Case 2216942/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. KA Smith v Reed Staffing Services Ltd. Hearing: Final Hearing — 2024
- Case reference
- 2216942/2023
- Decision date
- 13 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tinnion Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms. KA Smith
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs. Smith brought a holiday pay claim against Reed Staffing Services Ltd under s.13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and reg. 30(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The tribunal dealt only with the preliminary issue of limitation and jurisdiction. It accepted that RSS made its last wages and rolled-up holiday pay payment to Ms. Smith on 14 July 2023, and that she presented her ET1 on 2 November 2023 after ACAS early conciliation on 20-23 October 2023.
The tribunal held that the ET1 pleaded a claim only in respect of deductions or underpayments up to 14 July 2023. It relied on paragraph 8.2 of the ET1, the attached calculation table, Ms. Smith's witness statement, and her updated claim calculation, all of which referred to the period ending in July 2023 and did not allege a separate deduction on termination or on or around 20 October 2023. The tribunal found that the last deduction or underpayment pleaded in the ET1 was therefore the payment made on 14 July 2023.
Applying s.23 ERA 1996 and reg. 30(2) WTR 1998, the tribunal concluded that the claim had been presented outside the 3 month time limit. It found there was no jurisdiction to consider the holiday pay claim and struck it out under Rule 37(1)(a).
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay claim under s.13 ERA 1996 and reg. 30(1) WTR 1998. The tribunal struck it out because it was presented out of time and it had no jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.23(2) ERA 1996
- s.23(3) ERA 1996
- Reg 30(2) WTR 1998
- Rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules 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.