Case 2411687/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mr P Kershaw v Montgomery Transport Limited — 2020

Case reference: 2411687/2019
Decision date: 23 December 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Barker REPRESENTATION

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr P Kershaw

Respondent

Montgomery Transport Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mr Kershaw was employed as a Class 1 driver from August 2013. After a branch retinal artery occlusion in September 2017 he was absent from work from 25 September 2017 until his employment ended on capability grounds on 22 October 2019. The tribunal confined the hearing to holiday pay, contractual sick pay, bereavement leave and payment for meetings during sickness absence. It refused to entertain whistleblowing or criminal allegations because no such claim had been brought, and struck out irrelevant passages from the claimant's witness statement.

On the holiday pay claim, the tribunal found that Mr Kershaw repeatedly asked to be paid for accrued leave rather than to take annual leave on specified dates. It held that he had not given the notice required by Regulation 15 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and therefore was not entitled to payment in lieu while still employed. The tribunal also accepted the respondent's calculations on termination: no entitlement remained for the 2017-2018 leave year because the Plumb 18-month limit applied; for 2018-2019 he could carry over 4 weeks' Regulation 13 leave and two contractual service days, but not Regulation 13A bank and public holiday leave; and for the final leave year he was only entitled to a pro-rated entitlement plus two service days. The respondent had already paid £5,240, more than the £4,068 the tribunal calculated as due, so no further holiday pay was owed.

The contractual sick pay claim was withdrawn by the claimant during the hearing and was dismissed. The tribunal also allowed amended claims for three days' bereavement leave and for payment for attending meetings during sickness absence, but dismissed them. It held that bereavement leave was not payable during sickness absence and that attendance at meetings during long-term sickness did not attract any additional payment on the facts found. The separate £1 deduction point was excluded because it arose after the ET1 and no amendment application was made.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Breach of contract	Claim for contractual sick pay. The claimant said at the start of the hearing that he was withdrawing it because he had already been paid, albeit late; the judgment records that it was therefore dismissed.	Withdrawn	—	—
Holiday pay	Claim for payment for accrued but untaken annual leave during long-term sickness absence. The tribunal held the claimant had asked to be paid in lieu rather than to take leave on specified dates, so he had not complied with Regulation 15 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. On termination, the respondent had already paid £5,240, which exceeded the tribunal's calculated entitlement of £4,068, so no further holiday pay was owed.	Dismissed	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	Claim covering payment for three days' bereavement leave and four occasions of attending meetings during sickness absence. The tribunal allowed these issues into the case by amendment, but held bereavement leave was not payable during sickness absence and that no additional payment was due for meeting attendance. The separate £1 deduction point was not permitted to be added to the proceedings.	Dismissed	—	—

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £0; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

10 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.