Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland v Agnew
A series of underpayments of holiday pay is not broken by a gap of three months or more between them, so workers could claim underpayments going back many years.
Facts
Police officers and civilian staff of the Police Service of Northern Ireland were paid holiday pay based only on basic pay, without overtime, contrary to EU law. They brought claims for the underpayments going back to 1998. Under the legislation, a claim for unlawful deductions from wages must be brought within three months of the last deduction in a series. The employer argued that a gap of more than three months between deductions broke the series, which would have greatly limited the claims, following the approach of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Bear Scotland Ltd v Fulton.
Legal principle
The Supreme Court held that a series of deductions is not broken by a gap of three months or more between them. Lord Leggatt and Lord Burrows said that whether there is a series of deductions is a question of fact, which depends on whether there is a sufficient factual and temporal link between them, and that the deductions in this case were linked by the common fault in the calculation of holiday pay. The court disapproved Bear Scotland on this point. The claims could therefore go back to 1998, although in Great Britain a two year backstop introduced in 2015 limits such claims.
Related cases on whistleblowing, working time and pay
- British Airways plc v Williams [2012] UKSC 43, [2012] ICR 1375
- Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed [2017] EWCA Civ 979, [2018] ICR 731
- Federación de Servicios de Comisiones Obreras v Deutsche Bank SAE Case C-55/18, EU:C:2019:402
- Federación de Servicios Privados del sindicato Comisiones obreras v Tyco Integrated Security SL Case C-266/14, EU:C:2015:578
- Gilham v Ministry of Justice [2019] UKSC 44, [2019] 1 WLR 5905
- Harpur Trust v Brazel [2022] UKSC 21
- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth [2018] EWCA Civ 1436, [2018] ICR 1850
- King v Sash Window Workshop Ltd Case C-214/16, EU:C:2017:914
Studying employment law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
