Skip to content
Law Society of Scotland
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
  • For members

    • For members

    • CPD & Training

    • Membership and fees

    • Rules and guidance

    • Regulation and compliance

    • Journal

    • Business support

    • Career growth

    • Member benefits

    • Professional support

    • Lawscot Wellbeing

    • Lawscot Sustainability

  • News and events

    • News and events

    • Law Society news

    • Blogs & opinions

    • CPD & Training

    • Events

  • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying as a Scottish solicitor

    • Career support and advice

    • Our work with schools

    • Lawscot Foundation

    • Funding your education

    • Social mobility

  • Research and policy

    • Research and policy

    • Research

    • Influencing the law and policy

    • Equality and diversity

    • Our international work

    • Legal Services Review

    • Meet the Policy team

  • For the public

    • For the public

    • What solicitors can do for you

    • Making a complaint

    • Client protection

    • Find a Solicitor

    • Frequently asked questions

    • Your Scottish solicitor

  • About us

    • About us

    • Contact us

    • Who we are

    • Our strategy, reports and plans

    • Help and advice

    • Our standards

    • Work with us

    • Our logo and branding

    • Equality and diversity

  1. Home
  2. For members
  3. Journal Archive
  4. Issues
  5. March 2022
  6. Paid leave and backdated claims

Paid leave and backdated claims

The claimant in the Pimlico Plumbers case has won the right to claim holiday pay for the whole duration of his employment, with potentially significant implications for employers
14th March 2022 | Innes Clark

Having succeeded in persuading the Supreme Court that he was a worker ([2018] UKSC 29), the claimant in Smith v Pimlico Plumbers had less success when his claim for holiday pay returned to be decided by the employment tribunal. Both the tribunal at first instance and the Employment Appeal Tribunal ([2021] UKEAT 0211_19_1703) held that the claim for holiday pay had been brought out of time (author's note at this link). However, the Court of Appeal has overturned those decisions ([2022] EWCA Civ 70), holding that the claim is in time and that the claimant is entitled to claim for holiday pay going back through the entirety of his employment with Pimlico Plumbers.

In coming to its judgment the Court of Appeal considered the application of King v Sash Windows (C-214/16) a case in which the Court of Justice of the European Union held that a worker is entitled to be paid on termination for any periods of annual leave that had accrued during the employment but that had not been taken because the worker would not be paid for them. This applies only to the four weeks' paid holiday entitlement that arises under EU law, not the additional 1.6 weeks legislated for domestically under the Working Time Regulations 1998. The right to the paid leave accumulates when the worker is not given the opportunity to exercise it, crystallising on termination of employment. This type of claim, brought under reg 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 (“WTR”), is brought in time as long as it is lodged within three months of the date of termination of employment.

The employment tribunal and EAT had been of the view that the principle in King did not apply to workers who had taken the holiday, even though it was unpaid. This meant the claimant had to rely on an unlawful deduction from wages claim instead of WTR reg 14. The three-month time limit for unlawful deduction from wages claims runs from the date of the last deduction, and not the date of termination. In this case it meant that the unlawful deductions claim had been made out of time and was therefore dismissed.

The Court of Appeal however was of the view that King should be read as extending to workers who had taken leave but not been paid for it, as well as those who had been discouraged from taking it because it was not paid. Both these categories of worker had been prevented from exercising their right to “paid annual leave”. As this claim only crystallised on termination of employment it was in time, and the claimant did not need to rely on the late unlawful deduction from wages claim.

Bear put in doubt

Although not strictly necessary, given that this claim succeeded as a WTR claim and not an unlawful deduction of wages claim, the Court of Appeal still went on to consider the case of Bear Scotland Ltd v Fulton [2014] UKEAT 0047_13_0411. Bear was an EAT case that held that if a series of deductions was broken by a period of three months or more, that broke the series and any deductions made before that break could not be claimed. The Court of Appeal indicated a “strong provisional view” that Bear has been incorrectly decided. It is highly likely that this view will be referred to in future unlawful deduction of wages claims and that Bear will be formally overturned. However, the two-year backstop for claims introduced by the Deduction from Wages (Limitation) Regulations 2014 (which apply to deductions claims but not to reg 14 WTR claims) will apply.

The financial consequences of this judgment (unless appealed) for businesses that have misclassified workers may be significant. Where workers have been unable to exercise their right to four weeks' paid holiday (or any part thereof), their right will accumulate from year to year with no restriction, crystallising on termination of employment. It is not a defence that the employer honestly believed the individual was not legally a worker, and there is also an argument that interest should be applied to the compensation due to the claimant. The potential cost to businesses who have misclassified workers has just become very high indeed.

The Author

Innes Clark is a partner with Morton Fraser

Share this article
Add To Favorites
https://lawware.co.uk/

Regulars

  • People on the move: March 2022
  • Book reviews: March 2022
  • Reading for pleasure: March 2022

Perspectives

  • Opinion: Martin O'Brien
  • President's column: March 2022
  • Editorial: International order
  • Viewpoints: Endless arrear?
  • Profile: Elaine MacGlone

Features

  • Forward to the office
  • Fair compensation?
  • Pause for thought
  • FoI: rights needing a new law
  • Prepare for the great tax catch-up

Briefings

  • Civil court: Redaction – completing the picture
  • Corporate: Pandemic procurement: proper preferences?
  • Intellectual property: NFTs and IP rights
  • Agriculture: latest from the Land Court
  • Succession: Changes to reporting for excepted estates
  • Sport: Fan pressure and questions of morality
  • Property: New code for new homes
  • In-house: Democracy behind the scenes

In practice

  • Society Fellows speak out for legal aid
  • Strategy session draws a crowd
  • Ask Ash: Back to the old ways?
  • AML: time for a review, but how?
  • Cryptocurrency? No thank you
  • Going phishing
  • Race: time to be open
  • The Eternal Optimist: IT for dummies

Online exclusive

  • Survivorship and the insolvent estate
  • Cybersecurity actions for 2022
  • Paid leave and backdated claims
  • Exploring imposter syndrome in the legal profession

In this issue

  • Steven Hill: accredited technologist
  • EOTs: a business winner
  • "It's Game On!", law firms say
  • How workflow automation can improve your operations

Recent Issues

Dec 2023
Nov 2023
Oct 2023
Sept 2023
Search the archive

Additional

Law Society of Scotland
Atria One, 144 Morrison Street
Edinburgh
EH3 8EX
If you’re looking for a solicitor, visit FindaSolicitor.scot
T: +44(0) 131 226 7411
E: lawscot@lawscot.org.uk
About us
  • Contact us
  • Who we are
  • Strategy reports plans
  • Help and advice
  • Our standards
  • Work with us
Useful links
  • Find a Solicitor
  • Sign in
  • CPD & Training
  • Rules and guidance
  • Website terms and conditions
Law Society of Scotland | © 2025
Made by Gecko Agency Limited