Case 1600558/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Kirby v Enersys UK Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1600558/2020
- Decision date
- 21 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Brace Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Kirby
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge R Brace heard the matter remotely by CVP at Cardiff on 19 January 2021. The claimant, Mr L Kirby, appeared in person and the respondent, Enersys Ltd, was represented by a solicitor. The written judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons were provided in the record supplied.
The tribunal dismissed the complaint described as 'unlawful deduction from wages and/or breach of contract', finding that it was not well founded. The written record does not set out the underlying facts or the tribunal's reasoning on that complaint, only the outcome.
The tribunal also dismissed the complaint under s.189(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, again stating that it was not well founded. No remedy was awarded on either complaint.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The written judgment combines this with an unlawful deduction from wages complaint in a single complaint described as 'unlawful deduction from wages and/or breach of contract'; it was found not well founded and dismissed. Reasons were given orally. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Complaint under s.189(1) Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, likely a protective award claim, was found not well founded and dismissed. The written judgment gives no further factual detail. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.