In person v Dr Dwindar Nar t/a Dental Suite Hounslow — 2022

This was a reserved judgment in a case where the claimant confirmed he was not pursuing unfair dismissal or discrimination and the tribunal proceeded only on monetary claims for notice pay, holiday pay and mileage expenses. The respondent was a sole trader operating dental practices in Hounslow and Hythe, and the claimant had been employed as practice manager from 14 January 2019 to 31 July 2020. The written contract provided for 12 weeks' notice, 28 days' holiday including bank holidays, a holiday year running from 1 April to 31 March, no carry-over of holiday, and mileage at £0.35 per mile.

On notice pay, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had contractual notice of 12 weeks but found he received only 2 months' notice. It concluded either that the parties expressly agreed a reduced notice period at the 2 June 2020 meeting, reflected in the 6 June 2020 email describing termination as 'mutually agreed', or, if there was no express agreement, that the claimant acquiesced because he never objected to the shorter notice in later emails or discussions. The tribunal therefore found no breach of contract and, for the same reason, no unlawful deduction of wages arising from the notice claim.

On mileage expenses, the tribunal found the contractual mileage term was varied on or around 17 January 2020. It relied on the sequence in which Dr Nar agreed to pay £3,500 for past expenses, to fund an annual train ticket of £5,112 by instalments, and to provide a company car, with the claimant taking the vehicle and making no further requests for fuel mileage until termination. The tribunal accepted the claimant was not happy with the arrangement but found he was prepared to accept it, and held that the later references to a bonus scheme did not undermine the agreement. In the alternative, it found the claim had been overtaken by later agreement, including the claimant's acceptance of £317.68 as payment for outstanding expenses.

On holiday pay, the tribunal found the claimant had taken 14 days' leave in the 2020/21 leave year and had 8.5 days outstanding at 31 March 2020, but it rejected his evidence that Dr Nar had agreed to carry over unused leave. The claimant could not give specific details of any such agreement, and the tribunal preferred the respondent's evidence that no carry-over arrangement existed. It also held that there was no statutory right to carry over on the facts proved: there was no relevant agreement under regulation 13A, and no evidence that the claimant had been prevented from taking leave so as to engage the regulation 13 exceptions. All three claims were dismissed and no monetary award was made.