Miss. S. Pan v Kinoya Limited — 2026

Miss S. Pan worked for Kinoya Limited as a server/bartender on a zero-hours contract from 15 August to 28 September 2025. Her claims concerned unpaid holiday pay and itemised pay statements. She attended the hearing from China and could not give oral evidence because she had not shown that there was no legal or diplomatic barrier to taking evidence from that jurisdiction. She agreed to proceed without the requested Mandarin interpreter, relying on written documents, questions and submissions. The judge was satisfied that she could follow the proceedings.

The tribunal refused her application of 27 June 2026 to add complaints of automatic unfair dismissal for asserting a statutory right, failure to provide written employment particulars and deductions for induction hours. Applying the balance of injustice and hardship described in Selkent and Vaughan, it found that she had not adequately explained why these matters were omitted from her claim form or why she applied when she did. The respondent would need further documents and witness evidence after a relevant manager had left without a handover. The tribunal concluded that the respondent could not fairly defend the additional claims within the hearing window. Those proposed claims were not determined on their merits.

The itemised pay statement claim under section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed. The findings record an incorrect email address on Xero and an expired replacement link. In its conclusions, the tribunal relied on the claimant not activating a registration link within 14 days and reporting access problems only on 17 October 2025, after employment ended. Applying Leedham v Royal Mail Group Ltd and its purposive interpretation of the requirement to give payslips, the tribunal held that the respondent had provided the payslips.

The tribunal found that the claimant had accrued 14.14 hours of untaken annual leave, which had been omitted from her final salary through an administrative error. The manager she contacted left without passing on the issue. The tribunal found that her full entitlement of £161.40 had subsequently been paid and dismissed the holiday pay complaint brought under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. No monetary award was made.