Redundancy and Holiday Pay Calculation Errors Lead to Tribunal Appeal Win
The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed an appeal concerning redundancy and holiday pay calculations, citing errors in the original tribunal's assessment. The case has been sent back for review.
• public
Executor Wins Appeal Over Redundancy and Holiday Pay Dispute
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has allowed an appeal brought by the executor of Mr Iqbal Khan's estate against a judgment concerning redundancy and holiday pay owed to Mrs A. Vijendran. The original Employment Tribunal (ET) had ruled in favour of Mrs Vijendran, ordering the estate to pay £8,850 in redundancy and £4,039.36 for accrued holiday pay.
Background of the Case
Mrs Vijendran, an Accounts Assistant, was employed by Mr Khan until his death in 2020. She subsequently brought a claim to the ET for statutory redundancy and outstanding holiday pay. The ET initially entered a judgment in her favour after the executor, Mrs. Shifa Khan, failed to submit a timely response. Mrs Khan applied for a reconsideration, arguing that the redundancy and holiday pay figures were incorrectly calculated, but this was denied.
Grounds for Appeal
Mrs Khan appealed, arguing errors in the calculation of both the redundancy payment and the accrued holiday pay. She contended the weekly wage used in the redundancy calculation was inflated and that the holiday pay calculation failed to account for the claimant's working pattern and the relevant holiday year.
The EAT's Decision
Her Honour Judge Tucker allowed the appeal, citing that the ET had erred in refusing to consider written submissions from the executor and in failing to provide adequate reasons for its calculations. The EAT noted the lack of clarity regarding the basis for determining the weekly pay used in the redundancy calculation, especially given apparent agreement on the monthly salary. Similarly, the basis for the holiday pay award was unclear, including whether the claim was brought under the Working Time Regulations or as an unlawful deduction from wages.
Judge Tucker considered the decisions in Talash Hotels v Smith and Office Equipment Systems Ltd v Hughes, emphasizing that while a defaulting respondent is not automatically entitled to participate in remedy determination, it is generally wrong to disregard their written submissions, particularly concerning proportionality and the overriding objective of dealing with cases fairly and justly.
Case Remitted to Tribunal
The EAT remitted the case back to the Employment Tribunal for reconsideration. The Tribunal must now determine how to proceed, including whether to consider written submissions or hold a further hearing. The EAT emphasized it could not substitute its own decision due to multiple potential outcomes based on the available information.
The judge suggested that the parties may wish to seek legal advice or consider alternative dispute resolution to resolve the litigation.
Read the entire judgement here: The executor or personal representative of Mr Iqbal Khan, Mr Iqbal Khan trading as I.A Kay & Co v Mrs A Vijendran [2025] EAT 125
