Law reports

Go to section

Ainsworth v Inland Revenue, Court of Appeal, 22 April 2005

This is a preview. To continue reading please log in or Register to read this article

Case round-up: Holiday pay

This report relates to 1 case(s)

expand
Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Ainsworth and others [2005] IRLR 465 CA (2 other reports)
- Employees have to earn their holiday entitlement
  
  Date:
  
  5 July 2005
  
  The operation of the Working Time Regulations 1998 has caused some difficulties, most recently in defining what is meant by 'holiday' for those on long-term sickness absence.
- Holiday pay: No entitlement for those on more than 12 months' sick leave
  
  Date:
  
  10 June 2005
  
  In Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Ainsworth and others, the Court of Appeal holds that workers absent through long-term sick leave who have exhausted their entitlement to sick pay are not entitled to four weeks' holiday pay when they have done no work during the leave year.

This week's case round-up from Eversheds, covering holiday pay on long-term sickness absence.

Ainsworth v Inland Revenue, Court of Appeal, 22 April 2005

Ainsworth was dismissed by the Inland Revenue after a period of ill health lasting for more than a year.

Please log in to XpertHR to read the rest of this article

Email address:

Password:

Forgotten password?

Keep me logged in for 30 days. Is this safe?

Athens | Shibboleth

Read more items tagged with the same topics

Managing employees/workers
- Working time
  - Annual leave and holiday pay

Manage your tracked topics>

About this resource

Published date: 10 May 2005
Publisher: RBI
Source:: Personnel Today

The materials and information included in the XpertHR service are provided for reference purposes only. They are not intended either as a substitute for professional advice or judgment or to provide legal or other advice with respect to particular circumstances. Use of the service is subject to our terms and conditions.