Case 3202091/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss O Olawumi v Star Care UK Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3202091/2020
- Decision date
- 10 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lewis Appearances
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss O Olawumi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked for the respondent as a domiciliary care assistant from 24 February 2010, on PAYE until October 2016 and thereafter on a self-employed basis through her own company until 3 June 2020. Her unfair dismissal claim was withdrawn at the hearing on 10 June 2021 and dismissed on withdrawal. By the hearing the only live claim was for outstanding holiday pay; the claimant accepted that the national minimum wage is assessed on gross pay and that her two weeks' outstanding wages had been paid.
The tribunal found that for the period 2010 to 2016 the claimant had taken and been paid for periods of annual leave and was not prevented from taking leave. Any claim for unauthorised deductions relating to that PAYE period ought to have been brought within three months of the end of that employment relationship; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to do so and so the 2010-2016 holiday pay claim was out of time.
For the period October 2016 to June 2020 the tribunal held, applying the authorities on "normal pay", that holiday pay should have been calculated by reference to the flat rate the claimant was paid per booked call rather than the actual minutes logged. Applying 12.07% to the gross pay received in that period produced total holiday pay of £16,318.69. The respondent had already paid £7,474.35 in respect of holiday pay for the period, leaving a balance of £8,844.34 gross, which the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay.
Claims and outcomes
5 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim for unfair dismissal was dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant at the hearing on 10 June 2021. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Upheld in respect of holiday pay for the period 2016 to 2020 (self-employed worker period). The tribunal found the respondent should have calculated holiday pay on the flat rate per call rather than actual minutes worked. Balance owed: £8,844.34 gross. Claims for arrears of pay/wages outside holiday pay were accepted as paid/no longer pursued by the claimant at the hearing. | Upheld | — | £8,844 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Holiday pay claim for the period 2010 to 2016 (PAYE employment) was found to be out of time; tribunal held it was reasonably practicable to have brought the claim within 3 months of the end of the PAYE employment relationship and there was a break between the two periods. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay complaint is pleaded and adjudicated as an unauthorised deduction from wages under the WTR/ERA framework; tribunal expressly found the holiday pay complaint well-founded for 2016-2020. Award is captured under the unlawful_deduction_wages entry to avoid double-counting (£8,844.34 gross). | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,844
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- Working Time Regulations 1998 reg 14
- Working Time Regulations 1998 reg 16
- Employment Rights Act 1996 ss.221-224 (a week's pay)
- Deduction from Wages (Limitation) Regulations 2014
- Smith v Pimlico Plumbers Ltd (No 2)
- Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland v Agnew [2023] UKSC 33
- Article 7 Working Time Directive
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.