Miss A Jeffery v Ms N Olaiya — 2023

The tribunal first dealt with a late application to postpone made by the claimant by email the day before the hearing. It treated the email as a postponement application, but refused it because it was unsupported by evidence, was not copied to the respondent as required, and came against a background of very limited engagement with the proceedings. The tribunal noted that the respondent opposed postponement, that the respondent was described as a vulnerable individual, and that the impact of delay had to be weighed against the claimant's failure to comply with directions and to attend the hearing.

On the merits, the tribunal proceeded in the claimant's absence. It recorded that there was no witness statement or supporting evidence from the claimant, and that the respondent disputed both employment status and the substantive Working Time Regulations points. The tribunal said the claimant bore the burden of proof and would have needed evidence about the holiday year, leave taken, leave taken but unpaid, and any unpaid leave at the end of the engagement. The respondent's denial was supported by a witness statement.

The tribunal dismissed the claim for unpaid holiday pay as not well founded. It also recorded that the separate unfair dismissal claim had previously been struck out and was not before the tribunal for determination at this hearing.