Case 6008248/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Asprey v McGeoch Technology Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6008248/2024
- Decision date
- 23 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hussain Representation
- Venue
- Midlands West
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Asprey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr D Asprey was employed by McGeoch Technology Limited from 2 January 2020, initially as Head of Operations and then, from 18 October 2021, as Operations Director. His contract provided 25 days' paid holiday, stated that unused leave could not be carried forward without written consent, and also provided for a £7,200 car allowance and a 6% pension contribution. The tribunal found that Mr D'Ambrogio had permitted the claimant to carry forward leave from 2020 and that, by November 2022, the claimant was one of four employees who could manage his own leave without being required to use it by the end of quarter 1 of 2023.
After the claimant resigned on 23 February 2024, the tribunal found that the parties agreed he would not take all of his leave before termination in order to complete a handover, and that outstanding holiday would be paid on termination. It rejected the respondent's account that there had been no such agreement and found that the email of 31 May 2024 reflected an agreed arrangement: the last working day would be 07 June 2024, leave would be used for the remainder of June, and 15.5 days of carried-over holiday would be paid in lieu. On that basis, the tribunal found the effective date of termination remained 28 June 2024 and that the agreement did not unlawfully contract out of the Working Time Regulations 1998, because the claimant was entitled to rely on the more favourable contractual provision.
The holiday pay claim therefore succeeded and the tribunal awarded £6,092.74, using a daily rate of £393.08 from the 28 June 2024 payslip. The claim for unauthorised deductions from wages also succeeded: because the respondent had treated 07 June 2024 as the termination date, the claimant was left without the car allowance and pension contributions due for the last three weeks of June. The tribunal rejected the claimant's unsupported pension figure of £124.36 and instead calculated the outstanding pension contribution at £248.87, with car allowance of £465.25, making £714.12 in total. The total damages awarded were £6,806.86.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay for 15.5 days of accrued leave not taken at termination. The tribunal found the parties had agreed the claimant could carry leave over and that it would be paid in lieu on termination; the award was calculated at £393.08 per day. | Upheld | — | £6,093 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions from wages in respect of car allowance and pension contributions for 08 June 2024 to 28 June 2024. The tribunal found the effective date of termination was 28 June 2024 and that the respondent had treated 07 June 2024 as the termination date in breach of contract. | Upheld | — | £714 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,807
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
8 references- Regulations 13, 13A, 14 and 16 Working Time Regulations 1998
- Regulation 17 Working Time Regulations 1998
- Regulation 35 Working Time Regulations 1998
- Regulation 4 Employment Rights (Amendment, Revocation and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2023
- Section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 27(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction) England & Wales Order 1994
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.