Case 2306297/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr El Bhaireien v Lower Richmond Properties Ltd As agent for Abbeybay Properties Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2306297/2020
- Decision date
- 10 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright LIABILITY
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr El Bhaireien
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented his claim on 24 August 2020 after early conciliation. He said in the claim form that his employment had not ended, that it began on 3 February 2018, and that he had an accident on 23 February 2018. The claim before the tribunal was for holiday pay for the period he had been absent from work, less any holiday pay already paid.
At the hearing, the claimant referred to having received a P45 showing a leaving date of 1 April 2020, but he produced only Part 3 and did not provide the full document. The respondent denied sending a P45 and maintained that the claimant remained employed. Because the full P45 was not produced and the parties’ positions were otherwise consistent with ongoing employment, the tribunal found that the claimant’s employment had not terminated and that he remained employed.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the claim for holiday pay failed. It accepted that workers on long-term sickness absence remain entitled to accrue paid annual leave under the Working Time Directive, but said that a payment in lieu of unused leave arises only if employment is terminated. As the tribunal found there had been no termination, there was no right to a payment in lieu and the claim was dismissed. The tribunal also recorded that the claimant’s entitlement to holiday pay continued to accrue during employment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal dealt only with the claimant’s holiday pay claim and dismissed it because it found his employment had not terminated. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.