Claimant v Kingsland Nursery Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the most reliable evidence of hours worked was the contemporaneous handwritten signing-in sheets completed daily by managers, showing a maximum of 2,256.65 hours worked. The claimant was paid for 2,308.25 hours after a balancing payment in August 2019, meaning she was paid for more hours than she worked. The tribunal also found the correct hourly rate was £10.02 (not £10.22 as claimed), based on a 52-week year. There was therefore no unlawful deduction.
Facts
The claimant was employed as a nursery practitioner from July 2018 to July 2019 at an annual salary of £21,500. She worked contracted hours plus agreed overtime on certain days. There was a long-running dispute about hours worked and hourly rate. The respondent paid her using forecast timesheets each month (an unusual arrangement to accommodate her dissatisfaction with payment in arrears), and made a balancing payment of £494.36 on termination. This was a re-hearing following a successful EAT appeal on the basis the tribunal had not properly evaluated the evidence holistically.
Decision
The tribunal found the most reliable evidence of hours worked was the contemporaneous handwritten signing-in sheets completed daily by managers, which showed a maximum of 2,256.65 hours. The claimant had been paid for 2,308.25 hours. The tribunal also found the correct hourly rate was £10.02 based on a 52-week year, not £10.22 as claimed. The claimant's retrospective estimated timesheets were found to be the least reliable evidence. The claim for unlawful deduction of wages therefore failed.
Practical note
Contemporaneous records kept by managers in real-time will generally be preferred over a claimant's retrospective recollection or estimates, particularly where demonstrable errors can be shown in the claimant's account.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3321255/2019
- Decision date
- 29 December 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3.5
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- education
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- in house
Employment details
- Role
- Nursery Practitioner
- Salary band
- £20,000–£25,000
- Service
- 1 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep