Berta v. Hummus Brothers Ltd [2008] UKEAT 0184_08_1107 (11 July 2008)

Berta v. Hummus Brothers Ltd [2008] UKEAT 0184_08_1107 (11 July 2008)

The Employment Tribunal erred in refusing to stay the 2006 holiday pay claim because the procedural issue was, in fact, before the House of Lords in CIR v Ainsworth. Granting a stay is consistent with the overriding objective and avoids unnecessary expense and delay.

Citation
[2008] UKEAT 0184_08_1107
Parties
Appellant: Mr Berta; Respondent: Hummus Brothers Ltd
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
11 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Stay Claim
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Holiday Pay, Unlawful Deduction From Wages, Stay of Proceedings, Working Time Regulations, Employment Rights Act

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Berta

Appellant

Hummus Brothers Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Stay Claim

  1. 1 Whether a claim for unpaid holiday pay, out of time under the Working Time Regulations, can be brought as an unlawful deduction under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Tribunal should have stayed the 2006 holiday pay claim pending the House of Lords decision in CIR v Ainsworth

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal erred in refusing to stay the 2006 holiday pay claim because the procedural issue was, in fact, before the House of Lords in CIR v Ainsworth. Granting a stay is consistent with the overriding objective and avoids unnecessary expense and delay.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Set aside dismissal of the 2006 holiday pay claim
  • Remit the 2006 holiday pay claim to the Employment Tribunal with a direction to stay proceedings pending the House of Lords decision in CIR v Ainsworth