Case 2301031/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Heather Haley v Healthcare 1st Choice Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2301031/2022
- Decision date
- 8 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Musgrave-Cohen Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Heather Haley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Heather Haley was employed by Healthcare 1st Choice Ltd from 18 May 2018 until her resignation took effect on 24 November 2021. The tribunal found that in or around June 2021 her pay was increased to £33,000 per year, and that this increase applied to basic salary only. On the payslips, salary was paid every four weeks in 13 instalments each year, and the respondent underpaid basic salary from June 2021 onwards. The tribunal therefore awarded £1,234.65 for underpaid wages covering the period 1 June 2021 to 24 November 2021.
The tribunal also found that the claimant did not receive statutory sick pay for 13 working days of sickness from 8 November 2021 to 24 November 2021. It accepted her evidence that no payment was made for that final period of sickness despite a payslip later produced by the respondent, and awarded £249.21 gross for unpaid SSP. In relation to holiday pay, the tribunal held that the claim for 32 hours paid on 5 November 2020 was out of time and that there was no adequate basis to extend time. It further rejected the claimant's case that leave could be carried over from 2020 to 2021, finding that the updated terms in or around June 2021 preserved the rule that leave could not be carried forward and that the alleged memo relied upon by the claimant was not proven.
For the 2021 holiday year, the tribunal found that the claimant took no annual leave between 1 April 2021 and 24 November 2021 and had accrued 3.62 weeks of leave. It awarded £2,297.32 gross in lieu of accrued but untaken holiday on termination. The tribunal also found a breach of contract in relation to notice pay, but made no additional monetary award because the relevant sums were already covered by the unlawful deduction awards for wages and SSP. Finally, because the written statement of particulars omitted the start date of employment, the tribunal awarded two weeks' pay under section 38 Employment Act 2002, limited by the statutory cap to £1,088. The separate rent-related breach claim was withdrawn and dismissed on withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
8 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Basic salary underpayment from 1 June 2021 to 24 November 2021. The tribunal found the agreed increase to £33,000 applied to basic salary only, not to a wider package. | Upheld | — | £1,235 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid statutory sick pay for 13 working days of sickness from 8 November 2021 to 24 November 2021. | Upheld | — | £249 |
| Holiday pay | Claim for an increased hourly rate for 32 hours of holiday paid in November 2020. The tribunal held the claim was out of time and there was no basis to extend time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim that leave could be carried over from 2020 to 2021 failed. The tribunal found the updated terms in or around June 2021 preserved the no-carry-over rule and rejected the alleged April 2020 memo. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Pay in lieu of accrued but untaken annual leave for the 2021 holiday year, calculated on 3.62 weeks accrued and the accepted basic salary rate. | Upheld | — | £2,297 |
| Breach of contract |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,869
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulations 13, 13A and 13(10) Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
- Walters t/a Rosewood v Barik UKEAT/0053/16/BA
- Article 3 ETs Extension of Jurisdiction (E&W) Order 1994
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.