This article applies to England, Wales and Scotland.
Holiday Pay & Working Time Tribunal Claims: Data & Outcomes
Last updated: May 2026
In brief: Working Time Directive claims, which cover holiday pay, rest breaks and the 48-hour week, have grown into one of the largest categories of tribunal complaint. 1,771 were lodged in Q3 2025/26 (provisional), up 79% year on year. Of cases that reached a hearing, around 64% were decided for the claimant. Mean time to clearance was 29 weeks, the joint fastest jurisdiction.
Your employer never paid you for the holiday you accrued. Your final pay arrived without the holiday balance you had been carrying. Your zero-hours contract paid a flat rate that never seemed to account for overtime or commission. Your shifts left no time for the breaks your contract promised.
These are different problems with the same legal home: the Working Time Regulations 1998. The data below comes from the Ministry of Justice's most recent quarterly release and shows what actually happens to these claims at tribunal: how they resolve, how long they take, and how often the claimant walks away with what they were owed.
How common is this claim?
The Working Time Regulations 1998 (SI 1998/1833) implement the EU Working Time Directive. They set out the right to 5.6 weeks of paid annual leave (Regulation 13 and 13A), a 48-hour weekly working limit unless opted out (Regulation 4), a 20-minute break for shifts over six hours (Regulation 12), 11 hours of daily rest (Regulation 10), and 24 hours of weekly rest (Regulation 11). A worker who has been denied any of these rights, or whose holiday pay has been miscalculated, can bring a claim to the Employment Tribunal under Regulation 30.
Volumes have grown sharply as the Reform single-case management system has rolled out:
| Period | New complaints | Disposals | Open caseload (end of period) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023/24 (full year) | 333 | 151 | 252 |
| 2024/25 (full year) | 3,579 | 1,444 | 2,391 |
| 2025/26 Q1 | 1,489 | 607 | 3,253 |
| 2025/26 Q2 | 1,503 | 653 | 4,051 |
| 2025/26 Q3 (p) | 1,771 | 713 | 5,013 |
(p) = provisional. Source: Ministry of Justice tables ET_1_R, ET_2_R and ET_4_R, March 2026 release.
The picture is the same one visible across most tribunal jurisdictions in this release: receipts are rising quarter on quarter, disposals are not keeping up, and the open caseload has more than doubled in twelve months. Part of the early growth reflects the Reform rollout (this is single-case data only and excludes multiple claims), but the quarter-on-quarter pattern within 2025/26 is the cleaner signal.
What outcomes do these claims actually reach?
For the 713 Working Time complaints disposed of in Q3 2025/26, the Ministry of Justice records the following breakdown:
| Outcome | % of disposals |
|---|---|
| ACAS conciliated settlement | 23% |
| Withdrawn | 22% |
| Dismissed upon withdrawal | 21% |
| Default judgment | 12% |
| Successful at hearing | 9% |
| Unsuccessful at hearing | 5% |
| Struck out (not at a hearing) | 4% |
| Case discontinued | 1% |
| Disposed of / other | 3% |
Source: Ministry of Justice table ET_3_R, March 2026 release (provisional).
Two thirds of disposals (66%) close through some form of settlement, withdrawal or dismissal-on-withdrawal without the tribunal ruling on the merits. That sits broadly in line with the all-claim pattern. But two figures stand out from the system average: a 9% successful-at-hearing rate against a 4% all-claim figure, and a 12% default judgment rate against a 4% all-claim figure.
How often do claimants win at a hearing?
Of cases that reached a contested hearing in Q3 2025/26, the breakdown was 9% successful and 5% unsuccessful. Set against each other, that means the claimant prevailed in about 9 out of every 14 contested hearings, or roughly 64%.
That is one of the highest contested-hearing success rates in the tribunal system. The all-jurisdictions equivalent for the same quarter sits at around 56% (5% successful, 4% unsuccessful). Unfair dismissal sits at around 38%. Only unauthorised deductions claims show a similar pattern, with around 62% of contested hearings going the claimant's way.
The reason is the same in both jurisdictions. These claims tend to turn on documents (payslips, contracts, written records of hours and breaks) rather than disputed accounts of behaviour, intent or reasonableness. Where the records show that holiday pay was calculated on basic salary alone when overtime or commission should have been included, or that no record of rest breaks exists, the defence available to an employer at hearing is narrow.
The sample is small. Nine per cent of 713 disposals is roughly 64 successful hearing outcomes in a quarter, and the figure has moved between about 50% and 70% over the last six quarters as the case mix has evolved. The headline is that Working Time claims tend to succeed at hearing, not that any individual claim will.
Default judgments and why they cluster here
A default judgment is recorded where the employer fails to respond to the claim within the time limit, or fails to attend a hearing, and the tribunal decides in the claimant's favour without contest. Across all jurisdictions it accounts for around 4% of disposals. For Working Time Directive claims in Q3 2025/26 it was 12%.
Three drivers, the same as for unauthorised deductions:
- The defence is often weak on paper. If holiday pay was miscalculated for two years, or rest break records do not exist, the employer's room for argument is small regardless of the surrounding context.
- The respondent may have closed. Many of these claims arise after employment has ended, and a proportion of the employers involved are no longer trading or no longer engaging with correspondence.
- The disputed amounts are sometimes too low to defend economically.
Combined with the 9% successful-at-hearing figure, roughly one in five disposals (21%) in Q3 2025/26 resulted in the claimant being awarded what they were owed by a tribunal, whether through a contested hearing or by default. The equivalent figure across all jurisdictions was around 9%. For more on why this pattern repeats across pay-related claims, see our unauthorised deductions tribunal data and outcomes page.
How long do these claims take?
The Ministry of Justice's table T_3 gives mean time from claim receipt to clearance, broken down by jurisdiction:
| Jurisdiction | Mean time to clearance | Median |
|---|---|---|
| Unauthorised deductions | 29 weeks | 25 weeks |
| Working Time Directive | 29 weeks | 26 weeks |
| Insolvency and redundancy | 30 weeks | 24 weeks |
| Unfair dismissal | 33 weeks | 30 weeks |
| Breach of contract | 34 weeks | 32 weeks |
| Disability discrimination | 34 weeks | 32 weeks |
| Sex discrimination | 34 weeks | 33 weeks |
| Race discrimination | 36 weeks | 35 weeks |
| Age discrimination | 37 weeks | 34 weeks |
| Religion or belief | 39 weeks | 39 weeks |
| Equal pay | 42 weeks | 38 weeks |
| All single claims | 31 weeks | 28 weeks |
Source: Ministry of Justice table T_3, October to December 2025 release.
Working Time and unauthorised deductions claims are jointly the fastest jurisdictions to clear, two weeks ahead of the all-claim mean. The 75th percentile for Working Time claims sits at 40 weeks, so three quarters are concluded inside ten months.
The wider context is that the tribunal system is slowing down. The all-claim mean has risen from 19 weeks in Q3 2024/25 to 31 weeks in Q3 2025/26, a 12-week increase in a single year, as the open caseload across all jurisdictions has nearly tripled. Working Time claims remain the joint fastest jurisdiction, but the system around them is under significant strain.
What this jurisdiction covers
The Working Time Directive heading in the tribunal statistics is broad, covering several distinct types of complaint. The most common categories are:
Holiday pay claims make up the largest share. These include claims for holiday pay not paid on termination of employment (Regulation 14), holiday pay miscalculated on basic salary alone when overtime, commission or shift premiums should have been included, and rolled-up holiday pay that fell below the statutory minimum. Holiday pay claims can be brought under either the Working Time Regulations or as an unauthorised deduction from wages under the Employment Rights Act 1996. The two routes interact and have slightly different rules on how far back claims can go.
48-hour week complaints arise where an employer requires a worker to exceed an average of 48 hours per week over the 17-week reference period without a signed opt-out (Regulation 4). The 48-hour limit is an averaged limit, not a hard ceiling for each week. Breach of Regulation 4 does not itself give rise to a Regulation 30 complaint. Where a worker is subjected to a detriment for refusing to work in excess of the limit, a claim can be brought under section 45A of the Employment Rights Act 1996; a dismissal for that reason is automatically unfair under section 101A.
Rest break and rest period complaints cover refusal to permit the 20-minute rest break for shifts over six hours (Regulation 12), the 11-hour daily rest period (Regulation 10), and the 24-hour weekly rest period (Regulation 11). These are brought directly under Regulation 30, which provides for a declaration of breach and compensation reflecting the employer's default and any loss sustained.
Night worker complaints concern the 8-hour average limit on night work (Regulation 6) and the right to a free health assessment (Regulation 7). As with the 48-hour limit, these are typically enforced through detriment claims under section 45A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 or automatic unfair dismissal claims under section 101A, rather than direct Regulation 30 complaints.
What the data does not tell you
Holiday pay rules have changed twice recently and are still settling. The Supreme Court in Harpur Trust v Brazel [2022] UKSC 21 held that part-year workers were entitled to a full 5.6 weeks of paid leave and that their holiday could not be pro-rated using the 12.07% method. The Employment Rights (Amendment, Revocation and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2023 then partially reversed this for leave years starting on or after 1 April 2024, restoring rolled-up holiday pay at 12.07% for irregular hours and part-year workers. Which rule applies to a given claim depends on which leave year the claim covers.
The two-year backstop applies to wages-route claims, not Working Time Regulations claims. A worker bringing a holiday pay claim as an unauthorised deduction is limited to two years of backpay under the Deduction from Wages (Limitation) Regulations 2014. A worker bringing the same underlying claim under Regulation 16 of the Working Time Regulations is not subject to that backstop, though they are subject to a three-month time limit running from the act complained of. The strategic choice of route can affect what is recoverable.
A gap between underpayments does not automatically break a series. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland v Agnew [2023] UKSC 33, a series of unlawful deductions, including holiday pay underpayments, is not automatically broken by a gap of three months or more, nor by an intervening correct payment. The case turned on what is, in fact, a connected series of deductions.
Time limits will change for some claims. The Employment Rights Act 2025 will extend the standard tribunal time limit from three months to six months. The change is not expected to come into force before October 2026, and the current three-month limit applies in the meantime.
If you are thinking about making a claim
The first practical step is the time limit. Most Working Time complaints must be notified to ACAS within three months less one day of the act complained of (Regulation 30(2)). For holiday pay claims this is usually the date of the underpaid wage. For rest break claims it is the date of the missed break. For a series of underpayments the time limit runs from the last in the series.
Many of these claims settle at ACAS Early Conciliation before reaching a tribunal hearing. Our ACAS Early Conciliation guide sets out how the process works, and the employment tribunal time limits guide covers how dates are calculated when the deadline falls during conciliation.
If a holiday pay dispute is the only issue, the choice between framing the claim under the Working Time Regulations and framing it as an unauthorised deduction from wages can affect what is recoverable. Where the dispute is bound up with other issues, such as worker status or a dismissal, the relevant outcome data is different. See our unfair dismissal tribunal data and outcomes page for the breakdown there, and the employment tribunal outcomes and success rates page for context across every claim type.
A worker considering a Working Time claim where the amount in dispute is significant, where the employer is contesting worker status, or where the claim involves several years of holiday pay calculation, may want to take advice from a qualified employment solicitor before lodging.
FAQs
Is holiday pay a Working Time claim or an unauthorised deductions claim? It can be either. A claim under the Working Time Regulations is brought under Regulation 16 (payment in respect of leave taken) or Regulation 14 (compensation for accrued but untaken leave on termination). A claim under the Employment Rights Act 1996 is brought under section 13 as an unauthorised deduction. The two routes have different rules on backpay (the two-year backstop applies to the wages route but not the Working Time route) and the choice can affect what is recoverable.
What is the 48-hour week rule and when can I claim? A worker who has not signed an opt-out cannot be required to work more than an average of 48 hours per week, measured over a 17-week reference period. The right is enforced through a complaint of detriment or, where the worker has been dismissed for refusing to exceed the limit, automatic unfair dismissal. The 48-hour rule does not apply to certain workers, including some senior managers and some transport workers.
Can my employer require me to work without a break? Workers are entitled to a 20-minute uninterrupted rest break when their working day exceeds six hours (Regulation 12). The break is unpaid by default unless the contract says otherwise. There are limited exceptions, including for shift workers who cannot take a break in the middle of a shift, who must be allowed an equivalent compensatory rest period.
How is holiday pay calculated for variable hours workers? For leave years starting on or after 1 April 2024, irregular hours and part-year workers accrue holiday at 12.07% of the hours worked in each pay period, and rolled-up holiday pay is permitted. For leave years before that date, the position is more complicated and depends on whether the worker was a part-year worker covered by Harpur Trust v Brazel [2022] UKSC 21. The rules around the transition are an active area of dispute.
How much will I get if I win? For a holiday pay claim the remedy is recovery of the holiday pay that should have been paid. For breach of other Working Time rights, the tribunal may make a declaration of breach and award such compensation as is just and equitable in the circumstances (Regulation 30(4)), having regard to the employer's default and any loss sustained. Awards for injury to feelings are not available for breach claims under Regulation 30 (per the Court of Appeal in Gomes v Higher Level Care Ltd), though damages for actual personal injury caused by the breach can be in some cases. A separate detriment claim under section 45A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, where applicable, is treated differently.
Does ACAS Early Conciliation pause the time limit? Yes. Notifying ACAS within the standard three-month limit pauses the limitation period for the duration of conciliation, with a small extension afterwards if needed. A claim brought via ACAS first will be in time even if the tribunal claim is lodged after the original three-month deadline, provided the rules are followed.
Do I need a solicitor for a Working Time claim? Many of these claims are run by claimants without legal representation, particularly where the dispute turns on documentary evidence such as payslips, contracts and rotas. Where the amounts are large, where worker status is in dispute, or where the case raises Harpur Trust transitional issues, taking advice is often worthwhile.
Sources
- Ministry of Justice, Tribunals Statistics Quarterly: October to December 2025 (published March 2026): tables ET_1_R, ET_2_R, ET_3_R, ET_4_R, T_1, T_2, T_3. Available via gov.uk/government/collections/tribunals-statistics.
- Working Time Regulations 1998 (SI 1998/1833). Available at legislation.gov.uk.
- Employment Rights (Amendment, Revocation and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2023. Available at legislation.gov.uk.
- Harpur Trust v Brazel [2022] UKSC 21.
- Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland v Agnew [2023] UKSC 33.
- Gomes v Higher Level Care Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 418.
- Acas, Holiday entitlement and Working hours and rest. Available at acas.org.uk.