Case 3300400/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 3300400/2021
- Decision date
- 4 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler Appearances
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims for unpaid wages and holiday pay arising out of his employment, which ended on 31 March 2021. The tribunal recorded that the claim form was received on 13 January 2021 and that the last month for which unpaid wages were sought was November 2019. It found that the claimant had made the wage claim outside the statutory time limit in s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996 and that he had not shown it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim earlier.
On the wages issue, the tribunal rejected the claimant's evidence that the 2019 payments were merely loans or deferred salary to be repaid later. It accepted the respondent's evidence that the payments were made and accepted as wages in respect of the months in question, including the cash/BACS payments totalling £13,500. However, because the claim had been lodged out of time, the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to determine it and dismissed it. It added, in the alternative, that if the claim had been in time it would have found the balance of the claimed sums due because there was no written consent by the claimant to the deductions.
On holiday pay, the tribunal found that the claimant had taken three days of his 30-day 2020 entitlement before furlough and that there had been no rejected holiday requests between May 2020 and 31 December 2020. It found that the respondent initially relied on the contractual position that unused leave could not be carried over, but later agreed that the claimant could carry forward 27 days from 2020. The tribunal also found that the claimant accrued a further 7.5 days during his notice period and that the respondent was entitled to require that leave to be taken during the notice period. The holiday pay claim therefore failed and was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed because the tribunal found the complaint was presented outside the three-month limit in s.23 ERA 1996 and there was no evidence that it was not reasonably practicable to bring it in time. In the alternative, the tribunal said it would have found the balance of the claimed wages due because the claimant had not given written consent to the deductions. The claim included unpaid salary and employer pension contributions. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed. The tribunal found the claimant had 27 days of 2020 holiday to carry forward by agreement and a further 7.5 days accrued during the notice period. It held the coronavirus carry-forward amendment did not assist because the claimant had not shown it was not reasonably practicable to take the leave, and the respondent's notice requiring holiday during the notice period complied with regulation 15. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.23(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 15 Working Time Regulations 1998
- Working Time (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020
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.