United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1995] UKEAT 323_94_2706

Appeal No. EAT/323/94

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 27 June 1995

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)

MR S M SPRINGER MBE

MR R N STRAKER

---

JANES SOLICITORS          APPELLANTS

MS M LAMB-SIMPSON          RESPONDENT

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellants Janes Solicitors

11 - 12 Dover Street

London W1X 3PH

For the Respondent In person


 


MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal from the decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at London (North) on 19 January 1994.

In full reasons notified to the parties on 8 February 1994, the Tribunal unanimously decided that:

(1) Ms M Lamb-Simpson, the Applicant, was entitled to 11 days holiday pay of £533.30.

(2) The particulars of the Applicant's terms of employment under Section 1 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 included a term that the Applicant was entitled to 20 days paid holiday per annum and was entitled to carry over holiday entitlement to the following year(s). She was entitled to be paid by the employer any holiday entitlement existing at the date of termination of employment.

Janes Solicitors, employers of Ms Lamb-Simpson, appealed against that decision by a Notice of Appeal served on 22 March 1994. The background to the Industrial Tribunal decision was that on 6 August 1993, Ms Lamb-Simpson presented an application to the Industrial Tribunal complaining of an unauthorised deduction of wages and of a failure to provide her written statement of terms and conditions. The claim was resisted by the firm of Janes in a Notice of Appearance served on 21 September 1993. The Tribunal made the

following findings of fact:-

(1) Ms Martine Lamb-Simpson started employment with Janes in May 1991 as a temporary secretary/typist working through an agency. On 1 October 1991 she began full-time employment as a permanent secretary/typist employed by her firm.

(2) No statement of terms and conditions of employment was given to Ms Lamb-Simpson at any stage.

(3) The Tribunal accepted the contention made on behalf of Ms Lamb-Simpson that the terms and conditions of her employment would have included entitlement to holiday pay. They accepted Ms Lamb-Simpson's evidence, in preference to that of Mr Janes, that she would be entitled to four weeks' paid holidays as well as all public holidays, that she could take her holidays at any time and that she would be able to carry over holidays from one year to the following year.

(4) On the basis of that agreement the Tribunal calculated that Ms Lamb-Simpson was entitled to holiday pay for 11 days at the rate of £50.30 a day. That produced a total of £533.30.

On the appeal it is argued that the Tribunal erred in law in holding that Ms Lamb-Simpson was entitled to 11 days' holiday pay and that her contract of employment was subject to a term that she was entitled to be paid by Janes in respect of any holiday entitlement accrued but not taken at the date of termination of the contract of employment.

It was argued that there was no evidence before the Tribunal for the finding with regard to Ms Lamb-Simpson's rights in respect of holiday pay accrued but not taken at the date of termination of her contract of employment, or that her terms and conditions would have included entitlement to holiday pay as part of the express terms of the contract. It was argued that no such term could be implied into a contract of employment. The Tribunal erred in reaching a conclusion which was unsupported by evidence, was perverse, and one which no reasonable Tribunal, properly directed, could have reached.

Note from Mr Justice Mummery: 27 June 1995

If we reserve judgment, which I think is unlikely, I will dictate the rest of this judgment on to this reel. If, as is more likely, we give judgment on the same day after hearing argument, the remainder of the judgment will be on the tape in court.

Iris Pain (typist)