- Details
A step towards change?
BEIS has published an important consultation on calculating holiday pay. Julie Bann and Beth Edwards look at the proposals.
The Supreme Court in the case of Harpur Trust v Brazel [2022] UKSC 21, has caused massive implications for employers of sessional workers or term-time only workers.![]()
By way of summary the Supreme Court held that there is no legal right to pro rata holidays for part year workers. This means that workers and employees such as Ms. Brazel are entitled to receive the full entitlement of 5.6 weeks holiday, regardless of how much time they work per year.
This has created an anomaly for employers who are faced with paying the same amount of holiday pay for term time only workers as that provided to full time workers, which doesn’t appear to be fair in the circumstances.
We therefore welcome the fact that BEIS have launched a consultation into calculating holiday entitlement for part-year and irregular hours workers. In the consultation BEIS proposes retaining the current 52-week reference period for holiday pay calculation for all workers.
However, this would now include weeks where no work is done by the worker. This is contrary to the current position where weeks where a person has not worked are excluded from the 52 weeks. BEIS state that this would bring holiday pay entitlements in line with the actual time workers spend working, which would be a more equitable approach for employers.
In addition, BEIS states this process provides benefits for workers; it argues that under the current system, an employer could be incentivized to engage a worker for as little as one hour a week to avoid having to exclude an unworked week. Doing this would reduce the worker’s overall entitlement and pay.
BEIS state they are seeking views from all stakeholders, including employers, workers, business representative groups, unions, and those representing the interests of groups in the labour market.
The consultation will be open until 11:45pm on 9 March 2023.
Julie Bann is a partner and Beth Edwards is a trainee solicitor at Sharpe Pritchard LLP.
This article is for general awareness only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. The law may have changed since this page was first published. If you would like further advice and assistance in relation to any issue raised in this article, please contact us by telephone or email
For further insight and resources on local government legal issues from Sharpe Pritchard, please visit the SharpeEdge page by clicking on the banner below.
This article is for general awareness only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. The law may have changed since this page was first published. If you would like further advice and assistance in relation to any issue raised in this article, please contact us by telephone or email
|
Click here to view our archived articles or search below.
|
|
ABOUT SHARPE PRITCHARD
We are a national firm of public law specialists, serving local authorities, other public sector organisations and registered social landlords, as well as commercial clients and the third sector. Our team advises on a wide range of public law matters, spanning electoral law, procurement, construction, infrastructure, data protection and information law, planning and dispute resolution, to name a few key specialisms. All public sector organisations have a route to instruct us through the various frameworks we are appointed to. To find out more about our services, please click here.
|
|
OUR RECENT ARTICLES
April 30, 2026
The meaning and application of “freedom of speech” within the lawGeorge McLellan and Olivia Dawson represented the Free Speech Union in intervening to present written submissions to the Court concerning the meaning and application of “freedom of speech within the law”.
April 30, 2026
High Court rules on the service of local authority decision notices by emailThe High Court has confirmed that email service of statutory notices and decisions by local authorities is valid and effective on delivery, irrespective of whether the email is seen by the person concerned. Chloe McQuillan, Olivia Peake, and Amy Dann explain what you need to…
April 24, 2026
Post award modifications: Analysis of the “Modifications Claim” in TNLC v The Gambling Commission [2026] EWHC 891 (TCC)Nicola Sumner and Beatrice Wood consider the recent judgment which included claims in relation to the conduct of the procurement process (the “Process Claim”) and a challenge to post award modifications made to the Fourth UK National Lottery Licence (the “Modifications Claim”).
April 24, 2026
Separation of Powers in Wales: Is there a duty to consult before introducing a Bill into the Senedd Cymru?Oliver Dickie and Olivia Peake consider the judgment in R (The Greyhound Board of Great Britain Limited) v The Welsh Ministers [2026] EWHC 670 (Admin).
|
|
OUR KEY LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONTACTS
|
||
|
Partner 020 7406 4600 Find out more |
||
|
Partner 020 7406 4600 Find out more |
||
|
Rachel Murray-Smith Partner 020 7406 4600 Find out more |
||
|
|
||
|
Jo Pickering Partner 020 7406 4600 Find out more |
||
|
|
||
|
Emyr Thomas Partner 020 7406 4600 Find out more |
||
|
|
||
|
Gemma Duncan Partner 020 7406 4600 Find out more |
||
|
|
||
|
Simon Kiely Partner 020 7406 4600 Find out more |
||








Catherine Newman




