Case 1402344/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mrs L Kirk in person — 2021
- Case reference
- 1402344/2020
- Decision date
- 18 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Samuel Martinhull was employed as an Activity Instructor from 5 November 2018 until his resignation took effect on 10 January 2020. The tribunal found that the parties had an agreed contractual arrangement under which the respondent paid a monthly salary based on a 40-hour week, with daily timesheets and monthly statements tracking hours worked, hours carried forward, and any hours owed to the respondent. The claimant understood and accepted that system.
In June 2019 the claimant arranged to work elsewhere for part of the summer, and Mrs Kirk warned him that if he did not work the respondent's cover hours he could end up owing hours and/or money at the end of the financial year. The claimant replied that he was happy to take that risk. By the end of November and December 2019 the monthly statements showed hours carried forward as owing to the respondent, and on 13 January 2020 the parties met and agreed that, after crediting the claimant for 90 hours worked between 27 December 2019 and 10 January 2020, the balance owed was 48 hours, equating to £407.52.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been overpaid £407.52 and had been fully paid for all hours he worked. It therefore dismissed both his unlawful deduction from wages claim and his breach of contract claim. The respondent's employer's contract claim for £407.52 would have succeeded on the tribunal's findings, but it was dismissed on withdrawal after the claimant apologised and the respondent agreed not to pursue it.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimant had agreed the monthly salary and rolling hours arrangement, and that he had been overpaid rather than underpaid. On the tribunal's findings, he had been fully paid for all hours worked, so the claim failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant had agreed the contractual salary and hours system and that, as at 12 January 2020, he accepted the respondent's calculation that £407.52 was owed back for hours already paid but not worked. The claimant's breach of contract claim was therefore dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The respondent's employer's contract claim for repayment of £407.52 would have succeeded on the tribunal's findings, but it was dismissed on withdrawal after the claimant apologised and the respondent agreed not to pursue it. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.