Cases6000834/2025

Claimant v Portland Care 5 Limited

19 September 2025Before Employment Judge OstNottinghamhybrid

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

Holiday Paynot determined

This was a preliminary hearing on jurisdiction only. The tribunal determined it has jurisdiction to hear the holiday pay claim at final hearing because the claimant successfully obtained an extension of time under Regulation 30(2)(b) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The merits of the claim have not yet been determined.

Facts

Mrs West worked as a carer for Portland Care 5 Limited from 26 January 2023 to 16 May 2024. She was not told she was entitled to holiday pay and received none during employment. After learning of her entitlement around February 2024, she complained to the respondent but the issue was not resolved. After employment ended, she sought advice from Citizens Advice (around 5 August 2024) who directed her to ACAS. She contacted ACAS and understood she must first email the respondent and wait for a response. She emailed the respondent on 12 September 2024 and again on 18 October 2024. On 27 November 2024, ACAS provided information about early conciliation and tribunal processes. Mrs West started early conciliation the next day (28 November 2024) and filed her claim on 9 January 2025, the day early conciliation ended. The respondent argued the claim was out of time.

Decision

The tribunal granted an extension of time under Regulation 30(2)(b) of the Working Time Regulations 1998, finding it was not reasonably practicable for Mrs West to present her claim within three months. The tribunal found her ignorance of her rights was reasonable given her lack of IT competence, difficulty understanding legal processes, and reliance on free advice. She acted promptly once informed of her rights and the claim was presented within a reasonable further period. The tribunal therefore has jurisdiction to hear the holiday pay claim at final hearing.

Practical note

Ignorance of time limits can be reasonable where a claimant has limited IT skills and legal understanding, seeks advice from reputable sources, and acts promptly once informed of their rights, particularly where free advisors fail to explain time limits clearly.

Legal authorities cited

Schultz v Esso Petroleum Ltd [1999] 3 All ER 338Nolan v Balfour Beatty Engineering Services EAT 0109/11Westward Circuits Ltd v Read [1973] ICR 301Avon County Council v Haywood Hicks [1978] IRLR 118Porter v Bandridge Ltd [1978] ICR 943GMB v Hamm EAT 0246/00Lowri Beck Services Ltd v Brophy [2019] EWCA Civ 2490Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd [1974] ICR 53London International College v Sen [1992] IRLR 292, [1993] IRLR 333Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council [1984] IRLR 119

Statutes

Working Time Regulations 1998 Regulation 30(2A)Working Time Regulations 1998 Regulation 30(2)(b)Working Time Regulations 1998 Regulation 30(2)(a)Working Time Regulations 1998 Regulation 30(2)

Case details

Case number
6000834/2025
Decision date
19 September 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
No
Rep type
in house

Employment details

Role
carer
Service
1 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No