Case 6000834/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs P West v Portland Care 5 Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6000834/2025
- Decision date
- 17 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ost
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs P West
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs West worked as a carer at Greenacres Grange from 26 January 2023 until 16 May 2024. This judgment concerned only time limits for her complaint about accrued but unpaid holiday pay under Regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The Tribunal found that the primary three-month limit expired on 15 August 2024, and that Mrs West did not start early conciliation until 28 November 2024 after seeking help from Citizens Advice and ACAS and corresponding with the respondent during September and October 2024.
The Tribunal accepted Mrs West's evidence that she did not know she had a right to bring a tribunal claim, or about the time limit, until 27 November 2024 when she received ACAS guidance. It found her ignorance was reasonable in the circumstances, including her lack of competence in basic IT, her difficulty understanding legal written guidance, and her reliance on free advice rather than a skilled adviser. Applying the 'not reasonably practicable' test, and referring to authorities including Porter v Bandridge Ltd, GMB v Hamm and Lowri Beck Services Ltd v Brophy, the Tribunal held that it was not reasonably practicable for her to present the claim within the primary time limit.
On the second stage of Regulation 30(2)(b), the Tribunal held that the claim was presented within a further period that was reasonable. It found that Mrs West acted promptly once she understood the steps required: she contacted ACAS the next day after being directed to do so, began early conciliation when given the relevant information, and submitted her claim on 9 January 2025 when early conciliation ended. The application for an extension of time therefore succeeded, and the Tribunal said it had jurisdiction to consider the holiday pay complaint at a final hearing. No substantive ruling on the underlying holiday pay entitlement, and no remedy award, was made in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Preliminary hearing only: the claimant's application under Regulation 30(2)(b) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 for an extension of time succeeded, so the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider the holiday pay complaint at final hearing. No substantive liability or monetary award was determined in this judgment. The chronology in the judgment indicates early conciliation started on 28 November 2024; paragraph 29 contains an apparent typographical error referring to 28 November 2025. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- Regulation 30(2) Working Time Regulations 1998
- Regulation 30(2)(b) Working Time Regulations 1998
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd [1978] ICR 943 EWCA
- GMB v Hamm EAT 0246/00
- Lowri Beck Services Ltd v Brophy 2019 EWCA Civ 2490
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd 1974 ICR 53
- London International College v Sen [1992] IRLR 292 / [1993] IRLR 333
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council [1984] IRLR 119
- Schultz v Esso Petroleum Ltd [1999] 3 All ER 338
- Westward Circuits Ltd v Read [1973] ICR 301
- Nolan v Balfour Beatty Engineering Services EAT 0109/11
- Avon County Council v Haywood Hicks [1978] IRLR 118
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.