Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and another v Agnew and others

Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and another v Agnew and others

The inability of claimants under the Working Time Regulations (NI) 1998 and 2016 to benefit from the 'series' extension available under article 55(3) ERO infringes the EU principle of equivalence and must be remedied by reading the 'series' extension into the Regulations. The word 'series' is a factual question and is not broken as a matter of law by a gap of more than three months or by a lawful payment if the same underlying vice persists.

Parties
Appellants/cross Respondents: Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and another; Respondents/cross Appellants: Agnew and others; Intervener: Unison
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Holiday Pay, Limitation Periods, Unlawful Deductions From Wages, Principle of Equivalence, Working Time Regulations, Police Officers' Employment Rights
Employment Law Labour Law European Union Law Holiday Pay Limitation Periods Unlawful Deductions From Wages Principle of Equivalence Working Time Regulations +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and another

Appellants/cross Respondents

Agnew and others

Respondents/cross Appellants

Unison

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether police officers can rely on the 'series' extension for claims of underpaid holiday pay under the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (ERO)
  2. 2 Interpretation and application of the 'series' extension in limitation periods for unlawful deduction claims
  3. 3 Whether a gap of more than three months or a lawful payment breaks a 'series' of deductions

Ratio Decidendi

The inability of claimants under the Working Time Regulations (NI) 1998 and 2016 to benefit from the 'series' extension available under article 55(3) ERO infringes the EU principle of equivalence and must be remedied by reading the 'series' extension into the Regulations. The word 'series' is a factual question and is not broken as a matter of law by a gap of more than three months or by a lawful payment if the same underlying vice persists.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The 'series' extension is to be read into regulation 43(2)(a) of the Working Time Regulations (NI) 2016 and regulation 30(2)(a) of the 1998 Regulations as per the Court of Appeal's formulation.
  • The claims of the Respondents are not time-barred by reason only of gaps of more than three months or lawful payments between underpayments.