← Back to case studies
Case law
Harpur Trust v Brazel

Working part of the year doesn’t mean your holiday shrinks to match.

The ruling

“Supreme Court ruled a part-year worker's holiday must not be pro-rated down.”

Being on a permanent contract but only working part of the year does not mean your paid holiday is automatically reduced to match the proportion of the year you worked.

  • Ask your employer exactly which method they used to calculate your holiday pay, and whether it genuinely applies to your contract type.
  • If you work irregular hours or only part of the year, check whether the 12.07% method actually applies to you before accepting it as correct.
  • Get advice if the figures do not add up. This is a technical area where a small difference in contract wording can change the right answer.
Read the full case

The situation

A visiting music teacher at a school run by an educational trust worked on a permanent contract, but only during term time. She had no fixed weekly hours and was not paid at all during the school holidays. Her employer calculated her holiday pay using a standard formula that reduced it in proportion to how much of the year she actually worked, following guidance many employers relied on at the time.

What the court found

The Supreme Court held that a permanent worker's statutory holiday entitlement of 5.6 weeks is not to be pro-rated down to reflect only the weeks actually worked. Holiday pay for someone in this position is instead calculated as an average of pay received in recent working weeks, ignoring weeks where nothing was earned. Worked out this way, the figure can come out higher than a simple proportion of the year worked, and in this case, it did.

For the fuller detail on how holiday entitlement builds up, including where the 2024 reforms fit alongside this case, see our guide on how much paid holiday you're entitled to and how it builds up.

Full citation

Harpur Trust v Brazel. [2022] UKSC 21. UK Supreme Court. 20 July 2022.

Last reviewed 12 July 2026