Case 2305727/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms McIntosh-Roffey v Belle & Wilde Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2305727/2023
- Decision date
- 29 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ramsden Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms McIntosh-Roffey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs McIntosh-Roffey brought claims for unpaid holiday and bank holiday pay, unpaid off-the-job (OTJ) apprenticeship hours, underpayment caused by incorrect hourly rates in 2021, and failure to provide itemised pay statements. Applying the approach in Gestmin, the tribunal preferred contemporaneous documents over recollection, including the unsigned contract dated 1 June 2021, the apprenticeship commitment statement, and the respondent's later pay schedule. It found that the claimant was engaged from 1 June 2021 at £5 an hour, and that the respondent later paid lower rates for part of June to October 2021, producing underpayments of £447.59 gross.
The tribunal also found that, once the apprenticeship began on 3 September 2021, the claimant worked from home one day a week doing OTJ learning and should have been paid for those hours. Because the respondent had lost the log book and did not call the line manager who handled the arrangements, the tribunal relied on the claimant's evidence and the college records to estimate 728 unpaid OTJ hours. It valued those hours at the relevant rates and found £3,983.04 gross was owed.
On holiday pay, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction over two days of untaken 2022 annual leave because the claim was presented before employment ended. For annual leave and bank holidays actually taken in 2022 and 2023, it found a series of unlawful deductions, reduced the award for payments made in April 2024, and found £854.61 gross remained due. It accepted that May and June 2023 annual leave had been paid correctly on a 6.5-hour day basis, but other 2023 holiday and bank holiday days were unpaid.
The tribunal found a breach of section 8 ERA 1996 because the respondent never provided itemised pay statements showing hours worked, but it made no monetary award under section 12(4) because there were no unnotified deductions in the 13 weeks before the claim. It rejected the respondent's time-limit argument for the 2021 rate claims, holding that the claimant could not reasonably have brought them earlier without itemised pay information, and it applied a 15% uplift under section 207A TULRCA after the respondent failed to respond to the October 2023 grievance. The total award was £6,078.03 gross.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unlawful deductions for holiday and bank holiday pay taken in 2022 and 2023. The tribunal excluded two untaken 2022 annual leave days because it had no jurisdiction to award compensation for those before termination, and it credited sums paid in April 2024 when arriving at the figure. | Upheld | — | £855 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid off-the-job apprenticeship hours from 3 September 2021 to 4 September 2023. The tribunal found the claimant worked from home one day a week for OTJ learning and estimated 728 unpaid hours, valued at the relevant hourly rates. | Upheld | — | £3,983 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Underpayments caused by incorrect hourly rates between 1 June 2021 and 31 October 2021. The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to £5 per hour from the start of employment and relied on the respondent's pay schedule to identify underpayments at lower rates. | Upheld | — | £448 |
| Other | Breach of section 8 ERA 1996 for failure to provide itemised pay statements throughout employment. The tribunal made a declaration only and no monetary award under section 12(4), because it did not identify unnotified deductions in the 13 weeks before the claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,078
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- Gestmin approach to documentary evidence
- Bear Scotland Ltd v Fulton
- Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland v Agnew
- s.23 ERA 1996 time limits
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd not reasonably practicable test
- s.224 ERA 1996 average weekly remuneration
- s.207A TULRCA ACAS uplift
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.