Case 2502508/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Beryl Coffey v Eco UK Grants Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2502508/2022
- Decision date
- 29 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fitzpatrick Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Beryl Coffey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Beryl Coffey brought claims arising from the termination of her employment on 29 July 2022, including notice pay, holiday pay and employee pension contributions. The tribunal held that the notice-pay complaint was properly treated as a breach of contract claim because a non-contractual payment in lieu of notice is not wages. It also held that the holiday-pay claim was an unauthorised deduction from wages claim, and that the pension issue could be added by amendment, applying the Selkent amendment principles and the balance of injustice and hardship approach.
The notice-pay claim was dismissed. The tribunal found that the primary time limit expired on 28 October 2022, but ACAS conciliation did not begin until 30 November 2022, so there could be no extension for conciliation. It was not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim in time, and therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the notice-pay complaint.
The holiday-pay claim succeeded. The tribunal preferred the claimant's evidence that she was contractually entitled to 25 days' holiday plus bank holidays, pro-rated for part-time work, and found that she had taken three days' holiday plus the bank holidays that fell on her working days. On that basis it found that she had eight days of accrued but untaken holiday remaining and awarded £923.04 gross, calculated at £115.38 per day. The respondent's argument that it had made an overpayment of a little over £700 was not allowed as a set-off because the tribunal said it had no power to deduct that amount from the award.
The pension contribution claim succeeded. The tribunal found that the claimant had agreed to deductions from wages for employee pension contributions, that the respondent had deducted those sums, and that they had not been paid to Nest. It found an express or implied contractual term requiring the respondent to pay the deducted sums into the pension scheme, and awarded £459.97 based on the wage slips.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim for notice pay was treated as a non-contractual payment in lieu of notice and dismissed because it was presented out of time; the tribunal was not satisfied that it had not been reasonably practicable to present it within the primary time limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unpaid accrued holiday pay succeeded as an unauthorised deduction from wages claim. The tribunal found 8 days of accrued but untaken holiday remained and awarded gross holiday pay at £115.38 per day. | Upheld | — | £923 |
| Breach of contract | Claim added by amendment for employee pension contributions. The tribunal found an express or implied contractual term that deducted employee contributions would be paid into the pension scheme, and that the respondent failed to do so. | Upheld | — | £460 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,383
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
9 references- Delaney v Staples [1992] ICR 483
- Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore [1996] ICR 386
- Vaughan v Modality Partnership UKEAT/0147/20/BA
- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.27 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.207B Employment Rights Act 1996
- Article 7 Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England Wales) Order 1994
- Article 8B Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England Wales) Order 1994
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.