Case 2403111/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Christopher Smith v HGV Drivers UK Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2403111/2022
- Decision date
- 28 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Feeney
- Venue
- Manchester via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Christopher Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant worked for HGV Drivers UK Limited between 5 October 2021 and 23 December 2021 as an agency HGV tipper driver. His engagement had no fixed hours or fixed days. The agency agreement provided for statutory annual leave at 5.6 weeks, expressed as 12.07% when paid weekly on top of the hourly rate, and the tribunal treated the entitlement as accruing in proportion to hours worked during the leave year.
The tribunal found that the Claimant had worked 292.75 hours and that his hourly rate was £17.37. Applying the contractual/WTR formula, it calculated accrued holiday entitlement of 35.33 hours, worth £613.77. It found that he had taken no paid leave. The Respondent had purported to pay £171.23 in holiday pay on the final two payslips, but the tribunal held that this did not exhaust the entitlement, leaving £442.54 due in respect of accrued but untaken holiday pay.
The tribunal also dealt with the way the Respondent had paid the final two payslips. It accepted the Claimant's position that rolled-up holiday pay had not been agreed from the outset and noted that the Respondent had unilaterally reduced the hourly rate to £15.50 for the final two pay periods. After allowing a technical amendment to add an unlawful deductions from wages claim, the tribunal found that the correct sums due for those periods were higher than the sums actually paid, and it awarded £135.10 for unlawful deductions from wages.
In reaching its decision, the tribunal referred to the Working Time Regulations formula for holiday entitlement and to sections 221 to 224 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for calculating a week's pay, adapting that approach to a worker with variable hours and days. The final award consisted of £442.54 for holiday pay and £135.10 for unlawful deductions from wages, making £577.64 in total. A separate notice on interest was included, but no interest figure was set out in the reasons.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the Claimant, an agency HGV tipper driver with no fixed hours or days, had accrued holiday entitlement under clause 7 of the agency agreement and the Working Time Regulations. It calculated entitlement at 35.33 hours, worth £613.77 at £17.37 per hour, found that no paid leave had been taken, and credited the £171.23 that the Respondent had purported to pay on the final two payslips, leaving £442.54 due. | Upheld | — | £443 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal allowed a technical amendment to include an unlawful deductions from wages claim. It found that the final two payslips underpaid the Claimant because the Respondent used £15.50 per hour instead of the correct £17.37, so the sums properly due were £799.02 and £455.96 rather than £713 and £406.88, producing an award of £135.10. | Upheld | — | £135 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £578
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- Employment Tribunals Rules 42 and 47
- Working Time Regulations 1998 regulation 16
- Employment Rights Act 1996 sections 221-224
- overriding objective
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.