Case 6039450/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Clark v Lake District Hotels Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6039450/2025
- Decision date
- 1 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Clark
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr D Clark’s claim against Lake District Hotels Ltd concerned accrued holiday pay following notice of dismissal on 10 September 2025. The parties agreed that he had accrued 94.5 hours of annual leave, had a one-week notice period equivalent to 40 hours, and earned £13.50 an hour. He was not required to work his notice. His final pay covered his notice period and 54.5 hours of annual leave because the respondent treated the remaining 40 hours as leave taken during notice. The reasons for dismissal were outside the claim.
The tribunal found that Mr Clark had not agreed to take annual leave during his notice period. It preferred his account of the dismissal meeting because his email that evening showed that he expected notice pay plus payment for all accrued leave. Even on Mr Harris’s account, Mr Clark’s response amounted only to acknowledging a requirement imposed by the respondent. His failure to challenge Ms Boyd’s subsequent email did not establish agreement; he pursued ACAS Early Conciliation and then brought his claim.
Regulation 15 required notice twice the length of the proposed leave, which the respondent had not given. Although a relevant agreement could vary or exclude that requirement, the tribunal found that clause 6.4 of the employment contract did neither for employer-directed leave. Its statement that the respondent may require holiday on particular dates, including during notice, informed employees of an existing power without displacing the statutory notice mechanism. The tribunal distinguished that permissive wording from the mandatory wording considered in Industrial & Commercial Maintenance Limited v Briffa and Smith v Npower Yorkshire Ltd.
The claim under Regulation 14 was well-founded because the respondent could not require Mr Clark to use annual leave during notice without giving the statutory notice. The tribunal ordered payment of £540 for the 40 unpaid hours, subject to statutory deductions as appropriate. The accompanying interest notice specified 8% per annum from 20 August 2026, with no interest payable if the award was paid in full within 14 days after the decision was sent to the parties on 19 August 2026. No interest sum was quantified.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Payment for 40 hours of accrued annual leave on termination under Regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998. The award is gross and subject to statutory deductions as appropriate. | Upheld | — | £540 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £540
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- Regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
- Regulation 15(1)–(5) Working Time Regulations 1998
- Regulation 2 Working Time Regulations 1998: definition of relevant agreement
- Industrial & Commercial Maintenance Limited v Briffa UKEAT 0216/08/CEA
- Smith v Npower Yorkshire Ltd 2500813/12
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.