Ms Karen Davis v Clover Leaf Childcare Limited — 2019

At a preliminary hearing on 25 November 2019, Employment Judge Hoey considered the claimant’s application for a Preparation Time Order. The claimant did not attend but her written submissions and attachments, dated 26 July 2019, were considered. The respondent’s directors attended and addressed the matters raised. The underlying dispute concerned holiday pay, arrears of pay and itemised payslips, but this judgment was only concerned with whether the respondent’s conduct justified a Preparation Time Order.

The tribunal recorded that the respondent had accepted an underpayment of about £100 arising from an administrative oversight and that around £150 was due in respect of accrued holiday pay, although the calculation had been unclear because the claimant’s working pattern had changed. The respondent also disputed the payslip complaint, saying payslips had been sent by text and later in paper form when it emerged the claimant could not open the texted copies. The parties were also in ACAS-assisted negotiations, and the respondent later paid the claimant £800 to conclude matters, which was more than the claimant had sought.

Applying rule 76, the tribunal asked whether the respondent had acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably in the conduct of the proceedings. It concluded, on balance, that it had not. The tribunal accepted that there had been a failure to comply with orders, but found that the respondent was engaged in ongoing settlement discussions through ACAS, believed the orders would be overtaken by payment of the sums sought, and had apologised for the delay. The tribunal also noted that some delay was attributed to ACAS and was not the respondent’s fault.

The claimant’s application for a Preparation Time Order was therefore refused. The judgment records no monetary award on the application and no separate remedy figure beyond the respondent having already paid the sums sought in the underlying wage dispute.