Mrs R Williams v Mr G Duffy (T/a The Lighthouse Inn): 6003949/2026
JUDGMENT
The judgment of the Tribunal is as follows: Holiday Pay[1]The complaint in respect of holiday pay is well-founded. The respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages by failing to pay the claimant for holidays accrued but not taken on the date the claimant’s employment ended.[2]The respondent shall pay the claimant £176.80. The claimant is responsible for paying any tax or National Insurance.REASONS
[1]The hearing was listed at 10am. At that time the Claimant had joined the cvp link and the Respondent had not. I waited until 1015 whilst enquiries were made with the Respondent. At 1010 I was informed by the clerk that the Respondent was not available/present at the only phone number provided to the tribunal, and that no email address had been provided. At 1015, I was informed that technical support were in contact with the Respondent who was trying to join the link but that he was having difficulties. At 1030, I was informed by technical support that the equipment available to the Respondent was not capable of joining the cvp link and that it was not going to be possible to join the hearing listed this morning.[2]I considered at this point whether to postpone the hearing under Rule 32 and relist in order for the Respondent to join (either via video or in person); or to continue in the Respondent’s absence under Rule 47. In doing so I considered the following:a. The hearing had been listed by video since the notice of hearing, sent to the parties on 27th March 2026;b. That same notice of hearing attached information as to how to prepare for and take part in the video hearing;c. Within his ET3 form, the Respondent ticked to indicate that he could take part in hearings via video;d. At no point since that time had the Respondent indicated to the Tribunal that he would be unable to join a video hearing;e. The Respondent had not provided a witness statement in advance of the hearing;f. I considered it inappropriate for a witness to give evidence in a final hearing via telephone, particularly in the absence of any witness statement;g. The total value of the claim was £176.80.[3]Taking all of the above into account, I proceeded with the hearing in the Respondent’s absence, in accordance with Rule 47. Application[4]I granted the Claimant’s application to amend her claim form to complete paragraph 4. In doing so I considered the following:a. Tha application was made in a timely fashion (within 3 days of submission of claim form);b. The application caused no apparent prejudice to the Respondent;c. The information sought to be included at paragraph 4 was in line with information included at para 8.2 of the original claim form.Findings of fact
[5]In reaching my findings of fact, I took into account the Claimant’s claim form (ET1), and evidence referred to within it, which was sent to the Respondent and Tribunal via email, namely screenshots of Whatsapp messages, and emails, between herself and the Respondent. I also took into account the Respondent’s response form (ET3), and (to the extent it was relevant to the claim) the evidence submitted via the online portal.[6]The Claimant left her employment on 12th Oct 2025. She was sent her P45 and paid her outstanding wages of 10 hours in a timely fashion.[7]Thereafter, the Claimant queried with the Respondent her outstanding holiday pay. I have seen a screenshot which I accept was taken from the app used by the Respondent to send his employees wage slips, and which stated that the Claimant had 14.48 hours annual leave remaining. I have seen Whatsapp messages between the Claimant and Respondent in which the Claimant queried the amount owed and the Respondent initially agreed to meet the Claimant to discuss any monies outstanding, but thereafter seemed to disengage from communication with her.[8]In his ET3 response, the Respondent does not seem to dispute either that holiday pay was owed to the Claimant at the time of termination of her employment, or that it was not paid; rather he seeks to offset the amount owed against monies he claims the Claimant owed to him. There being no contract claim brought by the Claimant, this tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear such counter-claim by the Respondent.[9]On the balance of the evidence before me I find that at the termination of her employment with the Respondent, the Claimant had 14.48 hours holiday outstanding.[10]I accept her evidence that she was paid at a rate of £12.21 per hour, this being referred to in an email sent from her to the Respondent.[11]On the basis of my findings of fact, I find that at the termination of her employment, the Claimant had 14.48 hours of accrued but untaken annual leave, and that this should have been paid at a rate of £12.21 per hour.[12]The Respondent shall pay the Claimant the total sum of £176.80 as detailed in the judgment above. Approved by: