Ms D Truelove v Mr M Sheill and 1 other — 2022

The Tribunal recorded that the First Respondent was dismissed from the proceedings and that the Second Respondent had not presented an ET3. On the evidence of wage slips and a letter from the Second Respondent's accountants, it found that the Claimant was employed by the Second Respondent. It also found that both complaints were presented in time, taking account of ACAS Early Conciliation, under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and Regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998.

On holiday pay, the Tribunal accepted the Claimant's evidence that she had taken only two weeks' paid leave in the relevant 12-month period, had not been encouraged to take holiday, and had not been told about any leave-year arrangement. It held that she had been effectively denied the right to take paid leave, so she was permitted to carry over accrued leave. Relying on Smith v Pimlico Plumbers 2022 IRLR 347, it disapplied the no carry-over provisions of the Working Time Regulations 1998. As the Claimant was entitled to 5.6 weeks' paid leave and had taken 2 weeks, 3.6 weeks remained due at £200 per week, producing £720.

The Tribunal also found that, when proceedings began, the Second Respondent was in breach of its duty under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to provide a written statement of employment particulars. It found no exceptional circumstances making the minimum award unjust or inequitable, and no basis for a four-week award, so it awarded the statutory minimum of two weeks' pay, assessed at £400. The total award was £1,120.