Case 3327610/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr Jay Singh (Management) — 2020
- Case reference
- 3327610/2019
- Decision date
- 4 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Tsawar Hussain, worked for G F R Security Agency as a security guard on a zero-hours contract from 3 September 2018. His contract provided for 28 days' holiday in a January-to-December holiday year, and he took no holiday between 3 September and 31 December 2018. The claimant's later email to the tribunal set out claimed sums of £1,223.29 for holiday pay, £595.08 for alleged underpaid wages, and £1,970.04 for one month he said he had been suspended without reason, with a stated total of £3,788.41.
On the holiday pay issue, the tribunal took it that unused 2018 leave could carry over into the next holiday year, referring to Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften e.V. v Shimizu. It then found that the primary limitation period for an accrued 2018 holiday entitlement claim expired on 27 June 2019. Even if it were not reasonably practicable to present the claim within that time, the tribunal held that the claim issued on 15 December 2019 was not brought within a reasonable time thereafter, so the holiday pay claim was dismissed.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed on 28 March 2019. It accepted that he asked for outstanding holiday pay and was paid £673.69 on 10 May 2019, which the judge treated as confirming that he knew his employment had ended. In consequence, there could be no claim for unauthorised deduction of wages in relation to April 2019, and that claim was dismissed.
As to the alleged shortfall of pay in May, June and July 2019, the tribunal held that this related to a different contract with the respondent and that the respondent had had no notice of that head of claim. The judge therefore said that this claim was not before the tribunal. The final judgment stated that the claimant's claims were dismissed, and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal accepted, for the purposes of the case, that the claimant could carry over unused 2018 leave under Max-Planck, but held that the primary limitation period expired on 27 June 2019 and that the claim, issued on 15 December 2019, was not brought within a reasonable time thereafter. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Having found that the claimant was dismissed on 28 March 2019, the tribunal held there could be no claim for unauthorised deduction of wages in relation to April 2019. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The alleged shortfall of pay in May/June/July 2019 was said to relate to a different contract dated 5 May 2019, and the tribunal held that this head of claim was not before it. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften e.V. v Shimizu C-684/16 [2019] IRLR 148
- not reasonably practicable / reasonable time thereafter
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.