Case 6027571/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Waters v Associated Veterinary Services Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6027571/2025
- Decision date
- 10 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Abbott
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Waters
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Waters was entitled to salary and car allowance for February 2025 and 3–6 March 2025, together with payment for four days of unused holiday. Associated Veterinary Services Limited withheld those sums after asserting that previously reimbursed expenses were unsubstantiated. The tribunal treated the complaints as breach-of-contract allegations because section 14(1)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 excluded a section 13 unlawful-deduction claim concerning an overpayment of expenses.
Applying the contractual terms and the parties’ mileage agreement, the tribunal found that mileage reimbursement required a verifiable record of the journey and its business purpose but did not require fuel receipts. The September to December 2024 claims contained sufficient information. Most January 2025 claims did not identify specific clients and therefore did not meet the agreed condition, apart from the journey to the respondent’s office on 28 January. The respondent was justified in deducting £2,217.60 from net pay for the inadequately supported January mileage claims, but it had no proper justification for the larger deduction. After the permissible deduction, £505.11 remained payable for February and £916.63 for the final four working days and four days of unused holiday.
The tribunal rejected the claim for an additional day of holiday or time off in lieu for attending the PATS trade show on Sunday 29 September 2024. That entitlement arose in the previous leave year, and there was no evidence of an agreement allowing it to be carried beyond 31 December 2024. It also made no award for alleged consequential pension losses because Miss Waters retained the benefit of the £3,000 withdrawn and did not substantiate any fees, lost investment growth or other loss. The tribunal grossed up the two net-pay amounts to account for tax and National Insurance and awarded £1,849.38 in damages for breach of contract; the other complaints were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal treated the complaints as allegations of breach of contract. This entry covers unpaid salary, car allowance and four days of unused holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £1,849 |
| Holiday pay | This was the separate complaint for one additional day of holiday or time off in lieu arising from attendance at the PATS trade show on 29 September 2024. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,849
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 14(1)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- contractual interpretation principles in Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1997] UKHL 28
- contractual interpretation principles in Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank [2011] UKSC 50
- contractual interpretation principles in Arnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36
- contractual interpretation principles in Wood v Capita Insurance Services Ltd [2017] UKSC 24
- regulation 13 Working Time Regulations 1998
- balance of probabilities
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.