Case 3300651/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Perkins v British Airways plc — 2022
- Case reference
- 3300651/2021
- Decision date
- 22 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Milner-Moore Representation
- Venue
- Via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Perkins
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims alleging non-payment of contractual flying pay said to be worth £2,500 and non-payment for banked annual leave. The respondent relied on a settlement agreement dated 28 August 2020, entered shortly before the claimant's employment ended by redundancy on 31 August 2020, and argued that the claims had been compromised.
The Tribunal found that the settlement agreement satisfied the statutory requirements for a valid settlement agreement under section 203(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and regulation 35(3) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. It held that claims for unauthorised deduction from wages and breach of contract concerning contractual flying pay, and claims for unauthorised deduction from wages or under the Working Time Regulations concerning holiday pay, had been compromised and were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal also found that the agreement itself provided for payment of any outstanding untaken holiday. Because the agreement was made before termination and governed the terms on which employment ended, the Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction under the Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction) (England and Wales) Order 1994 to consider a breach of contract claim alleging non-payment of sums due under the agreement. The claimant had not provided the ordered details or evidence of the holiday pay claim, so a strike out warning was directed rather than a final merits decision on that claim.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claims of unauthorised deduction from wages in relation to non-payment of contractual flying pay were found to have been compromised by the settlement agreement, leaving the Tribunal with no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claims in relation to non-payment of contractual flying pay were found to have been compromised by the settlement agreement, leaving the Tribunal with no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claims of unauthorised deduction from wages in relation to pay in lieu of untaken annual leave were found to have been compromised by the settlement agreement, leaving the Tribunal with no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Claims under regulation 16 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 in relation to pay in lieu of untaken annual leave were found to have been compromised by the settlement agreement, leaving the Tribunal with no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to consider a breach of contract complaint alleging failure to pay sums due under the settlement agreement in respect of untaken annual leave. The merits and any remedy were not determined in this judgment. |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 203(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 35(3) Working Time Regulations 1998
- Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction) (England and Wales) Order 1994
- Rock-It Cargo Ltd v Green
- Miller Bros & FBP Butler Ltd v Johnston
- rule 47 Employment Tribunal procedure rules
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.