Ms V Bennett v Bennett Time Productions Ltd T/a Mixed Blessings Bakery: 6012333/2025
JUDGMENT
The judgment of the Tribunal is as follows:(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 holiday taken between 1 – 14 April 2024.(2) The Respondent shall pay the Claimant £647.50. The Claimant is responsible for paying any tax or National Insurance. Approved by Employment Judge Harrington 23 September 2025 Sent to Parties. 28 October 2025 1 of 2 Case Number:6012333/2025 Note Reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing. Written reasons will not be provided unless a party asked for them at the hearing or a party makes a written request within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision.REASONS
Introduction
[1]The claim is brought by Ms Veronica Bennett, the Claimant, against Bennett Time Productions Limited trading as Mixed Blessings Bakery. Ms Natalie Bennett, a director of the Respondent company, has been in attendance today. The Claimant has represented herself and the Respondent is represented by Mr Henry, a legal advisor and non-practising barrister.[2]There are two bundles of documents provided to the Tribunal, although I have referred to the Respondent’s bundle because it contained all the documents the Claimant wanted to refer to. Accordingly, numbers appearing in square brackets are to page numbers in the Respondent’s bundle. I have also been referred to a witness statement from Ms Natalie Bennett and a note and list of issues from Mr Henry.[3]At the remote video hearing today, I heard oral evidence from the Claimant and Miss Natalie Bennett. Following this, both parties had an opportunity to make submissions.[4]A short oral judgment was provided to the parties at the conclusion of the hearing and a short written Judgment, dated 23 September 2025, was provided 1 of 5 to the parties. Following the Respondent’s request these extended reasons are now provided.Findings of Fact
[5]The Claimant has been employed by the Respondent from 1 December 2021. She brings a claim for unpaid holiday pay for a holiday taken in April 2024.[6]The following relevant facts were agreed by the parties:(a) The Claimant is employed by the Respondent as a sales assistant.(b) Miss Natalie Bennett is a director of the Respondent company. The Claimant and Miss Bennett are sisters.(c) The business has two premises. At all relevant times the Claimant worked at the premises in Tooting. She worked five days a week for approximately 31.5 hours per week. She was paid £11.44 per hour.(d) The Claimant was away on holiday from 1 – 14 April 2024. During this time she was absent from work for 10 working days.(e) The Claimant was not paid for the entirety of this time. She received a payment of £73.22 referred to as holiday pay on her payslip.(f) There was no formal process in place for the booking and taking of holidays. The Claimant did not have a written contract of employment and there was no written policy from the Respondent company setting out the arrangements for holiday entitlement and how and when this would be paid.(g) Throughout the Claimant’s employment from December 2021 up until April 2024, and including her holiday in that month, the Claimant did not receive any holiday pay beyond that referred to in paragraph (e) above.[7]In addition to the agreed findings, the Tribunal made the following further findings of fact; the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities:(a) From the oral evidence of Miss Bennett, it was clear that in her role as director she had no detailed understanding of the Claimant’s holiday entitlement, how this was calculated and how and when the Claimant was paid for taking holiday. She placed some reliance upon the Respondent’s accountant assisting with these matters but as a director it was notable that she could not provide the Tribunal with this basic information.(b) The Claimant’s holiday year ran from 1 September 2023 - 31 August 2024. The Claimant had not taken any holiday from work during the period 1 September 2023 onwards until her break in April 2024.(c) The Claimant received a payment of £1,454.51 for her wages at the end of May 2024. This amount was different from the figure of £1,598.51 recorded on her payslip. The Claimant had been told by Miss Bennett that she was going to receive an additional £200 in wages at the end of May 2024 for holiday pay. As stated, she was actually underpaid the quoted figure by £144.00 and was then instructed to repay a further £56.00 to Miss Bennett in cash. In reaching this finding, the Tribunal noted the text messages from Miss Bennett to the Claimant included in the bundle [36], the annotated payslip for 31 May 2024 [124] and a copy of the Claimant’s bank statement for May 2024 showing receipt of 2 of 5 £1,454.51 [136]. In June 2024, a message was sent referring to needing to take £56.00 in June 2024 because in May the Claimant had been ‘over paid’ [36].(d) There were various conversations between the Claimant and Miss Bennett in the months that followed during which the Claimant sought to clarify the amount of wages she was paid. The Tribunal accepted the Claimant’s evidence that Miss Bennett assured the Claimant that she would be paid holiday pay, which was owed, in subsequent months.(e) In December 2024 the Claimant sustained a significant injury when she was assaulted at work. Parties’ submissions[8]The Claimant submitted that she was entitled to holiday pay for the ten days she was away on holiday.[9]The Respondent submitted that the Claimant’s claim was brought out of time and so could not succeed. In the alternative, Mr Henry submitted that there was no agreement that the Claimant could be paid her annual leave, taken in April 2024 if it had not accrued at that time and that there was no agreement she could be paid for it later, when it had accrued. Tribunal’s Conclusions[10]The Tribunal began by considering the Respondent’s submission that the claim was brought out of time.[11]A complaint of an unlawful deduction from wages must be presented within the period of three months beginning with the date of the deduction complained of, or such further period as the Tribunal considers reasonable if it satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim within the three month period (section 23(4) ERA 1996).[12]A failure to pay is not treated as an unlawful deduction until the last date on which the employer was contractually permitted to make the payment concerned (Group 4 Nightspeed Ltd v Gilbert [1997] IRLR 398). Where a complaint is of a series of deductions, time runs from the last such deduction (section 23(3) ERA 1996). Guidance as to the application of time limits with respect to a single deduction and to a series of deductions was given by the EAT in Taylorplan Services Ltd v Jackson [1996] IRLR 184. Applying that guidance, the Tribunal concluded as follows:(a) The Claimant’s complaint relates to a series of deductions. The fact that there was more than a single deduction is clear from the evidence about the Claimant’s pay at the end of May 2024. There was a deduction at the end of April, a deduction in May 2024 and a deduction in June 2024 when the Claimant was required to ‘repay’ £56 of her wages back to Miss Bennett.(b) Thereafter there was a significant lack of clarity as to the wages the Claimant would receive at the end of each month. The Tribunal accepted, as set out above, that there were ongoing communications 3 of 5 between the Claimant and Miss Bennett and that Miss Bennett provided repeated reassurances that the Claimant’s pay would be adjusted appropriately throughout and up until the end of the leave year.(c) On the balance of probabilities, the Tribunal concluded that the holiday year was 1 September 2023 – 31 August 2024.(d) Accordingly, the date of the last deduction was the end of August 2024. This date was not within the period of 3 months of the Claimant commencing early conciliation and prior to the presentation of the claim to the Tribunal.[13]The Tribunal therefore proceeded to consider whether it was reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented within the relevant three month period. There is extensive case law on this issue with the Court of Appeal and EAT repeatedly stressing that particular decisions should not be taken as laying down hard and fast rules. Following a review of the authorities, the Court of Appeal in Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council [1984] 1 All ER 945, was able to offer no more specific test than that the tribunal should ask whether it was 'reasonably feasible' to present the claim in time – a test which May LJ acknowledged was easier to state than to apply.[14]Understanding that the burden of proof is on the Claimant, the Tribunal concluded that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of the three month period. The Tribunal relied upon the following matters:(a) In this case, there was a significant lack of clarity as to the wages the Claimant was receiving. This included the Claimant’s wage slip in May 2024 stating a figure which was not then paid to her and the Claimant being asked to pay back some of her wages in June 2024. The lack of proper accounting of the wages to be paid provided a very specific context to the communications between the Claimant and Miss Bennett which followed.(b) The Tribunal accepted that in the circumstances of this case, the Claimant reasonably understood that she would receive further payment from the Respondent – possibly at the end of the leave year or possibly at the end of the tax year (end of March 2025).(c) These conclusions were supported by documentary evidence – for example, correspondence from the Claimant dated 3 February 2025 requesting that the remaining hours be paid and for confirmation of ‘the status of the payment’ [40]. The language used by the Claimant in the communication of 3 February 2025, in addition to her oral evidence on this point, satisfied the Tribunal that there were active communications with Miss Bennett and that the Claimant reasonably believed that further payments would be forthcoming.[15]The Tribunal also concluded the complaint was nevertheless presented within a reasonable time. In addition to the matters set out above, the Tribunal took into account the fact that in December 2024 the Claimant sustained a significant back injury following an assault at work. Medical certificates signing her off from work were included within the bundle [37-39, 43 – 44, 55, 70]. It can be seen from the documentary evidence that the Claimant’s back condition has 4 of 5 turned into a ‘chronic’ issue. The Tribunal found that it was more likely than not that this injury, sustained following an assault at work, had a significant effect on the Claimant’s ability to proceed with her work related complaint to the Tribunal. The Tribunal was satisfied that the Claimant took the necessary steps within a reasonable time by proceeding to early conciliation in March 2025 and presenting her claim shortly thereafter.[16]On the basis of the Tribunal’s determinations on the issue of time limits, and having exercised its discretion, the Claimant’s claim was permitted to proceed.[17]With regards to the substantive claim, there was limited and contradictory evidence presented to the Tribunal. On the balance of probabilities, the Tribunal concluded that the holiday year ran from 1 September to 31 August each year.[18]Taking account of the 15.93 hours of annual leave stated to accrue in 1 month (see payslip for May 2024) and applying this to the period September 2023 to April 2024, the Claimant had accrued 127.44 hours of annual leave which was in excess of the 63 hours of annual leave taken in April 2024. For this reason, I did not accept any suggestion from the Respondent that the Claimant was not entitled to holiday pay following her leave in April 2024 because it had not accrued at that time.[19]Taking into account the £73.50 paid and, on the basis of holiday pay being calculated using the hourly rate of £11.44, there was an unauthorised deduction of holiday pay in the sum of £647.50.