Cases2304452/2023

Claimant v Secretary of State for Justice

11 June 2025Before Employment Judge HeathLondon Southremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Holiday Payfailed

Tribunal held claimant was not a worker under ERA 1996 s.230, not a worker under WTR regulation 2, and not a worker under EU law (Working Time Directive). She held judicial office and did not work under a contract. Claimant also failed to give proper notice under Regulation 15 WTR and claims were out of time under Regulation 30 WTR.

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesfailed

Tribunal held claimant was not a worker for the purposes of Part II ERA 1996, so could not bring a claim for unlawful deduction of wages. Additionally, she failed to establish when alleged deductions were made, so could not satisfy time limits.

Facts

Claimant was a qualified solicitor appointed in 2013 as a Specialist Member of the Mental Health Tribunal and Non-Legal Member of the SEND Tribunal. She worked on a fee-paid basis, indicating availability on forms, sitting 30+ days per year initially, later increasing to near full-time. She was paid a daily fee calculated as 1/220th of a notional full-time salary, which the respondent said incorporated holiday pay. She claimed she had never been paid holiday pay and brought claims under the Working Time Regulations and ERA for unlawful deduction of wages.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed all claims. It held the claimant was not a worker under domestic law (ERA s.230 or WTR Reg 2) as judicial office holders do not work under a contract. She was not a worker under EU law as she did not perform services under the direction of another. Her human rights arguments under Article 14 ECHR failed as she did not bring herself within the ambit of Article 8 or A1P1. Even if she had worker status, she failed to give proper notice under Reg 15 WTR and her claims were out of time under Reg 30 WTR.

Practical note

Judicial office holders, including non-legal tribunal members, are not workers under ERA 1996, the Working Time Regulations, or EU law, and cannot claim holiday pay or bring unlawful deduction claims, despite being fee-paid and treated administratively like employees for tax purposes.

Legal authorities cited

Griffiths v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2017] ICR 160Gilham v Ministry of Justice [2019] UKSC 44Ministry of Justice v O'Brien [2013] UKSC 6Union Syndicale Solidaires Isère v Premier Ministre (C-428/09)Harpur Trust v Brazel [2022] ICR 1380Stec v United Kingdom (2005) 41 EHRR SE18R (Stott) v Justice Secretary [2020] AC 51Denisov v Ukraine (Application No 76639/11)Djalo v SSJ [2025] EAT 67Miller v Ministry of Justice 1700853/2007Mistlin v Ministry of Justice 2204666/2013Somerville v NMC

Statutes

WTR Reg 15WTR Reg 16WTR Reg 30Human Rights Act 1998 s.3ECHR Art 14ERA 1996 s.230ECHR Art 8ECHR A1P1Working Time Directive 2003/88/ECWTR Reg 2

Case details

Case number
2304452/2023
Decision date
11 June 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
2
Classification
contested

Respondent

Name
Secretary of State for Justice
Sector
central government
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Specialist Tribunal Member / Non-Legal Member

Claimant representation

Represented
No