Miss Penelope Seaton v Dall Cleaning Services plc — 2023

Miss Penelope Seaton brought claims for holiday pay and breach of contract against Dall Cleaning Services PLC. At the hearing she accepted that she was not owed accrued holiday pay for 1 February 2020 to 31 January 2021 and that she had been paid for holiday accrued between 1 February 2021 and 10 September 2021. The remaining holiday issue concerned 14.5 days from 1 February 2019 to 31 January 2020, together with her contention that employment ended on 14 October 2021 rather than 10 September 2021.

The tribunal found that the claimant’s employment ended on 10 September 2021. Her resignation letter was dated that day and stated that she was resigning with immediate effect. Although the letter later referred to accrued annual leave being included in final salary and in lieu of notice, the tribunal found that this did not make it obvious that she was resigning with notice. It also relied on the fact that she returned company property the same day and had no intention of returning to work, so there was no entitlement to holiday pay after 10 September 2021.

On the 14.5 days from 2019/2020, the tribunal accepted that the claimant and Christopher Fenn had agreed that the days could be carried forward, and it found that the Respondent later confirmed this by email, using the term 'lieu days'. However, it held that regulation 13(10) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 did not assist because the days were carried over by agreement rather than under regulation 13. The tribunal also found that the claimant was not prevented from taking leave by any of the circumstances recognised in the authorities or by the coronavirus amendments.

The tribunal rejected the breach of contract claim because the written contract did not contain an express term providing for payment in lieu of unused holiday on termination, and the evidence did not justify implying such a term. It referred to the principles on implied terms, including business efficacy and custom and practice, and concluded that the Respondent’s earlier payment of some unused holiday did not establish a general expectation or custom of paying in lieu of unused holiday on termination in the claimant’s circumstances. Both claims were therefore dismissed and no monetary award was made.