​IN THE JERSEY EMPLOYMENT AND DISCRIMINATION TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN

Reference:                                     [2024] TRE 244

Hearing date:                                  3 April 2025

Before:                                           Advocate Dr Elena Moran, Chairperson,

Appearance:

For the Claimant:                             In person

For the Respondent:                       Edward Walker, Peninsula Group Limited

JUDGMENT

  The Claimant is awarded £529 for unlawful deduction from wages and £848.75 for holiday pay.

REASONS

1.         Daniel Mildren was employed by the Respondent as a Pool Servicing Engineer. He resigned and his employment ended on 11 October 2024. His final payslip included a deduction of £29 for “general deduction” and £500 for “vehicle maintenance”. It also included holiday pay for 65.5 hours at £17.50 per hour.

2.         Mr Mildren filed a Claim Form on 31 October 2024 claiming that the deductions from his wages of £529 were unlawful and additional holiday pay.

3.         The Respondent filed a Response Form in which it denied both the claims. The deductions of £529 were said to be lawful and relate to damage to the Claimant’s van. In relation to holiday pay it said that all holiday pay owed was paid in the final salary. In terms of entitlement the Respondent made a specific admission in the Response Form that Mr Mildren carried over 48 hours of annual leave to 2024.

4.         The Response Form contains a counterclaim against Mr Mildren for a replacement battery at £220, two hours for both directors at £100 each and 5 hours of account manager’s time at £77 per hour.

5.         A case management meeting took place on 24 February 2024. The parties were ordered to exchange witness statements and documents by 20 March 2024. The Respondent was ordered to file a bundle with the Tribunal no later than noon on 27 March 2025. The Final Hearing was listed for 10 am on Thursday 3 April 2024.

6.         No bundle was filed with the Tribunal. The Registrar contacted the Respondent’s representative via phone and by email on 28 March 2025. The Respondent’s representative responded the same day apologising for the delay and submitting a bundle without witness statements. The email asks that the parties be allowed to exchange and file witness statements on Monday 31 March 2025. 

7.         No statements were submitted by either party on Monday 31 March 2025.

8.         At 17:03 on Wednesday 2 April 2025 the Respondent’s representative sent an email to the Tribunal.  The email says that the Respondent no longer defends the unlawful deduction claims of £529. There is also a request to amend the Response Form to remove the concession that the Claimant carried over 48 hours holidays from 2023. The admission is said to be a clerical error. It is argued that it is in the interests of justice to allow the amendment because the Respondent has a very strong defence to the claim and it turns on a question of fact for the Tribunal to decide.

9.         Attached to the email are two witness statements. The first is a statement from Mr Mildren dated 31 March 2025. The second is from Georgina Corke who works for the Respondent and is responsible for payroll and HR matters. The statement is dated 2 April 2025 and only addresses the holiday pay issue. Attached to her statement are two pages of entries from the HR system purporting to show that all annual leave was taken in 2023.

10.     At the start of the hearing the Respondent’s representative agreed to judgment of £529 pounds in relation to the unlawful deductions claim. No explanation was provided for why the Respondent abandoned its defence of the claim so late in the day. The Respondent’s representative also withdrew the counterclaim. Again, there was no explanation of why this happened so late.

11.     In relation to application to amend the Response to the holiday pay claim to withdraw the concession of 48 hours carried over, the main argument put forward by the representative was that it was a mistake by the representative and not the fault of the Respondent.

12.     I refused leave to amend. I did so for two reasons. First, the application was made after 5 pm the day before the hearing. The application should have been made as soon as the Respondent received the orders from the case management meeting. The lateness of the application meant that Mr Mildren was not given a proper opportunity to respond in his witness statement. Second, I was not satisfied that the Respondent had disclosed all documents relevant to the carryover. Mr Mildren said that his payslips would show he did not take all his leave in 2023, but the payslips were not attached to Ms Corke’s statement. There would have been other relevant evidence such as the tracker on Mr Mildren’s van and customer records but none of this was disclosed by the Respondent.

13.     I therefore proceeded on the basis that the concession of 48 hours carried over remained in place. The parties agreed that the pro rata holiday entitlement for 2024 was 97 hours making a total of 145 hours. Of that 34 hours were taken and Mr Mildren was paid 65.5 hours. He is owed 48.5 hours. Given an hourly rate of £17.50 this makes a total of £848.75.

14.     The result is that the Respondent must pay the Claimant a total of £1,377.75. Payment should be gross and Mr Mildren is responsible for any income tax and social security due on the holiday pay. Payment must be made within 14 days.

Advocate Dr Elena Moran                                                                            4 April 2025