Case 2502140/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Healy v Start People Limited Heard: Remotely (by video link) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2502140/2020
- Decision date
- 23 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Healy
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Healy worked for Start People Limited from 25 February 2020 until 31 July 2020 on a single assignment with an end client. The respondent is an agency supplying staff. The claimant signed a standard contract described as a contract for services for temporary workers, and the tribunal recorded that the parties were largely in agreement on the material facts. She worked 20 days for the end client, was furloughed on the client’s request from 24 March 2020, and was paid holiday pay for the period she had actually worked but not for the period from 25 March 2020 to 31 July 2020.
The respondent relied on government guidance and a solicitor’s article to argue that the claimant was not entitled to holiday pay during furlough. The tribunal found that the key issue was not whether the contract required holiday pay between assignments. On the facts presented, the claimant’s assignment at the end client had not ended when she was placed on furlough, so the tribunal did not need to determine status or entitlement between assignments for the purpose of resolving the claim.
Using the furlough dates in the government calculator, the tribunal found that the claimant had accrued 10 days’ leave during the relevant period. The claimant accepted that figure and accepted a daily rate of £65. The tribunal therefore held that the claim for unauthorised deduction of wages, based on unpaid holiday pay, was well-founded and ordered payment of £650 before tax and National Insurance deductions.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim succeeded for unpaid accrued holiday pay; tribunal ordered 10 days at £65 per day, less deductions for tax and National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £650 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £650
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.27 ERA 1996
- s.23(3)(a) ERA 1996
- regulation 13 WTR 1998
- regulation 13A WTR 1998
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.