Property Manager Awarded Nearly Half a Million Pounds for 827 Unpaid Holiday Days
In an extraordinary employment case, a property manager has been awarded almost £500,000 after accumulating a staggering 827 days of unpaid holiday over 25 years of service. Mohamed Ageli, who worked for Libyan-owned real estate firm Sabtina Limited, saw his repeated holiday requests refused due to "pressure of work," leading to an unprecedented accumulation of entitlement.
Decades of Denied Leave
The Watford Employment Tribunal heard that Mr Ageli, who goes by the name Moss, joined Sabtina Limited in 1987 as deputy managing director, later becoming commercial manager. From the outset, his ability to take annual leave was severely restricted. Between 1987 and 1989, he took no holiday days whatsoever because only he and his personal assistant were full-time employees, requiring constant presence for the company to function.
Between 1988 and 1996 alone, directors refused 200 of his holiday requests. In some years, Mr Ageli took no holiday at all, while in others he managed only a fraction of his entitlement. His original holiday allowance of 30 days per year was increased to 45 days in 1996, but this did little to improve his ability to actually take time off.
The Unusual Payment Agreement
By 1998, Mr Ageli realized he would never be able to take proper holidays with the company and negotiated an alternative arrangement. He wrote to the non-resident managing director, who also headed the parent company in Libya, requesting payment in lieu of unutilised holidays. The managing director agreed and signed the document.
"When it almost became the norm that holidays were difficult to have, I requested that, as and when required, I receive payment in lieu of unutilised holidays because of the circumstances of the company," Mr Ageli told the tribunal. "The managing director agreed and signed the document."
This agreement became so established that future paperwork was deemed unnecessary. Mr Ageli simply kept records of his accumulating holiday entitlement. The arrangement was demonstrated by payments of £15,000 in both 2001 and 2004 for holiday pay, though it was agreed the balance would roll over rather than be paid annually.
Sudden Dismissal and Withheld Payments
The situation changed dramatically in May 2022 when Sabtina's board of directors was replaced. The new directors demanded documentation from Mr Ageli and gradually stripped him of duties until he had no meaningful role despite remaining an employee. In March 2024, he received an email dismissing him for alleged gross misconduct.
Mr Ageli, who earned £123,000 annually, immediately contested the dismissal, stating it was untrue that he had been warned about his conduct and that he had been denied any right to appeal. He was also informed he would not receive payment for the 827 unpaid holiday days accrued since 1998, totaling £392,000.
Tribunal Findings and Awards
Employment Judge George Alliott described the case as "unusual" and found in Mr Ageli's favor on multiple counts. The judge determined that Sabtina had agreed from the start of Mr Ageli's employment that unused holiday would be recorded and would roll forward each year.
"I find that it was agreed between Mr Ageli and Sabtina that he would be paid for his holiday as and when needed or at the end of his employment," Judge Alliott stated. The judge also found that Sabtina "did not have a genuine belief that Mr Ageli had committed gross misconduct" and conducted neither a reasonable investigation nor had reasonable grounds for their conclusion.
The tribunal ordered Sabtina to pay the full £392,000 in holiday pay owed, plus £91,490 compensation for unfair dismissal and a basic award of £14,070, bringing the total to nearly £500,000. Judge Alliott characterized the dismissal as "clearly procedurally unfair."
Broader Implications
This case highlights several important employment law principles, particularly regarding holiday entitlement accumulation and payment agreements. Mr Ageli explained that both he and his PA were "saving the holidays we could not have for when needed or at retirement," noting that Sabtina had no pension scheme for employees.
Sabtina Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Libyan Foreign Investment Company (LAFICO), which in turn is a subsidiary of the Libyan Investment Authority. The case serves as a stark reminder to employers about the importance of honoring agreed arrangements and following proper procedures in employment matters.
