VadeLab
AllowedEmployment Tribunal·england-and-wales·

Unpaid Holiday Pay Claim Succeeds at Employment Tribunal

Case No. 1810333/2024 · Judge Buckley

📌 In brief

An Employment Tribunal awarded a worker £892.30 for unpaid holiday pay after their employer failed to attend the hearing or provide evidence against the claim.

⚖️ Legal holding

An employer must provide proper holiday pay based on a rolling 12-week average if there is no valid ET3 or supporting evidence to refute the claim.

Topics

unpaid holiday payemployment tribunal procedure

Provisions

s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996reg 3 Working Time Regulations 1998

📖 Technical summary

The Employment Tribunal ruled in favour of the claimant for unpaid holiday pay, despite the respondent's absence and lack of evidence.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Employment Tribunal ruled in favour of the claimant for unpaid holiday pay, despite the respondent's absence and lack of evidence. The decision was based on the claim form and correspondence.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

Case No:1810333/2024

1

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Claimant: [redacted]

HELD AT: Leeds Employment Tribunal ( By CVP) ON: 5 March 2026 BEFORE: Employment Judge Buckley

REPRESENTATION:

Claimant: [redacted]

[NAME] (litigation friend) Did not appear.

JUDGMENT (under rule 22) having been sent to the parties and written reasons having been requested by the [APPELLANT], the following reasons are provided:

REASONS

1. The [APPELLANT] failed to present a valid response on time. The [APPELLANT] was given notice of the final hearing. The [APPELLANT] applied for a postponement but this was refused. The [APPELLANT] did not attend the final hearing.

2. I took account of the information in the claim form and in correspondence from the [APPELLANT] and decided that I had sufficient information to determine the claim.

3. The claim form sets out that [RESPONDENT] pay is calculated on the basis of 1 weeks wage per year based on a rolling 12 week average. The amount claimed by the claimant was calculated on that basis, based on the wages that she had been paid. On that basis I was satisfied that the [RESPONDENT] pay was properly payable under her contract in the amount of £892.30.

4. Although the [APPELLANT] had not submitted an ET3 it was apparent from the correspondence and the claim form that the [APPELLANT] asserted that it had withheld the [RESPONDENT] pay because it said that the claimant had falsified her hours and damaged equipment. In the absence of any ET3 or any evidence to support this allegation I was satisfied that the wages were properly payable and that any deduction was unlawful.

Case No:1810333/2024

2

Approved by:

Employment Judge Buckley

Date 13 April 2026

JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON

FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE

Notes Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision.

Public access to employment tribunal decisions Judgments and reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at www.gov.uk/employment- tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimant(s) and [APPELLANT](s) in a case.

Case No:1810333/2024

1

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Claimant: [redacted]

REPRESENTATION:

Claimant: [redacted]

[NAME] (litigation friend) Did not appear.

JUDGMENT The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 – Rule 22

1. The [APPELLANT] has failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge has decided that a determination can properly be made of the claim in accordance with rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure. 2. The claim for unpaid [RESPONDENT] pay SUCCEEDS. 3. The [APPELLANT] shall pay the claimant the sum of £892.30. 4. The recoupment regulations do not apply.

Approved by:

Employment Judge Buckley

Date 5 March 2026

JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON

Case No:1810333/2024

2

FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • The employer must comply with the Working Time Regulations 1998 when calculating statutory annual leave payments.
  • An employer must pay an employee their outstanding wages, holiday pay, and notice period if these are not provided as per the Employment Rights Act 1996 section
  • An employer must provide accrued but untaken holiday pay to a departing employee under UK law.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The tribunal ruled in favour of the claimant, awarding them £892.30 for unpaid holiday pay.

Who was involved?

A worker and their employer were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the information provided in the claim form and correspondence, as the respondent failed to attend or provide evidence.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Employment Rights Act 1996 and Working Time Regulations 1998 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The lack of a valid ET3 from the respondent and their absence at the hearing were crucial in the decision.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the claimant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone with an unpaid holiday pay claim can succeed if their employer fails to respond properly and attend the hearing.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The claim form and correspondence were key, as no ET3 was provided by the respondent.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions from Employment Tribunals can typically be appealed to an employment appeal tribunal.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for specific legal cases.

Official source: Employment Tribunal — england-and-wales headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the Employment Tribunal and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.