Case 2219206/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Ms C Chambers v London Borough of Islington and 1 other — 2024

Case reference: 2219206/2023
Decision date: 10 July 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge B Smith
Venue: London Central

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Ms C Chambers

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a preliminary hearing concerning strike-out, deposit orders, and time limits. The claimant had been supplied by the second respondent to work for the first respondent and alleged breaches of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 concerning holiday pay, bank holiday pay, and pay awards. The claimant clarified that there was no notice pay claim and no standalone unlawful deduction claim about national insurance.

The tribunal struck out the unauthorised deduction from wages claim, finding that the alleged Agency Workers Regulations breaches did not establish that the sums were properly payable as wages under the Employment Rights Act 1996. It also struck out the Agency Workers Regulations complaint against the second respondent because, taking the claimant's case at its highest, there were no facts suggesting that the second respondent was responsible for any breach under regulation 14.

The tribunal struck out the Agency Workers Regulations complaint concerning pay awards because the claimant was paid at a significantly higher equivalent daily rate than the direct comparator and the pay awards did not take comparators above her level of overall pay. The tribunal refused to strike out the holiday pay and bank holiday pay element against the first respondent, noting issues about annual leave entitlement and transparency of the rolled-up holiday pay mechanism, but found that aspect had little reasonable prospect of success and ordered a £100 deposit for it to proceed. The tribunal found the remaining holiday pay and bank holiday pay complaint was in time, or alternatively that it was just and equitable to consider it.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

This 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
Unlawful deduction from wages	The tribunal found that presenting the alleged Agency Workers Regulations breaches as an unauthorised deduction from wages claim was misconceived and had no reasonable prospect of success.	Struck out	—	—
Agency worker regulations	The complaint of breach of regulation 5 Agency Workers Regulations 2010 against the second respondent was struck out because the tribunal found no reasonable prospect of establishing that the second respondent was responsible for any breach.	Struck out	—	—
Agency worker regulations	The complaint concerning non-payment of national pay award increases was struck out because the claimant's case, taken at its highest, did not suggest the pay awards put direct comparators at a higher level of overall pay than the claimant.	Struck out	—	—
Agency worker regulations	The application to strike out the regulation 5 complaint concerning holiday pay and bank holiday pay was refused. That complaint was found to be in time, or alternatively just and equitable to consider, and was to proceed against the first respondent subject to a deposit order.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

10 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.