Case 3305175/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Dewick v Cambridge Care Company Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3305175/2020
- Decision date
- 21 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bloom Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Dewick
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by Cambridge Care Company Limited as a care worker from 30 September 2019 to 6 April 2020. The parties agreed the relevant holiday year ran from 1 April to 31 March, that the claimant was paid £8.27 per hour, that she worked eight hours a day, and that she took no annual leave between the start of her employment and 31 March 2020. She claimed accrued statutory holiday pay for that period, which she calculated as one half of the statutory entitlement, rounded up to 14 days.
The tribunal accepted the respondent's argument that there was no entitlement to carry over unused holiday into the next year under the handbook, and it held that regulation 13(9) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 required statutory leave to be taken in the leave year in which it fell due unless the employment was terminated. It found that the claimant's employment was not terminated until 6 April 2020, which was in the following leave year, so regulation 14 did not assist her claim for the earlier year. The tribunal also found that she was not prevented from taking leave by sickness, maternity leave, or any similar reason, but simply chose not to book any holiday.
On that basis the claim for accrued holiday pay failed and was dismissed. The judgment also records that the respondent's counterclaim for breach of contract was dismissed upon withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | Claim for accrued holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations 1998. The tribunal found that the claimant had not taken annual leave during the relevant holiday year, but her employment ended on 6 April 2020, after that holiday year had ended, so regulation 14 did not entitle her to payment for the earlier year. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Respondent counterclaim. The judgment states that it was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Regulation 13(9) Working Time Regulations 1998
- Regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
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.