Case 1800143/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Kirby v G4S Secure Solutions (UK) Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1800143/2020
- Decision date
- 4 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Kirby
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant remained employed by the respondent as an Events Security Steward and claimed unauthorised deductions from wages and non-payment of holiday pay. He argued that his hourly rate while working on a Ministry of Justice contract should have been linked to the SIA Events rate paid on another contract, and that later payment at £9.30 per hour supported that position.
The tribunal found there was no evidence, on the balance of probabilities, of an express or implied contractual term linking the claimant's pay to any other worker or to the SIA Events rate. The claimant accepted that his written contract stated he would be paid for hours actually worked at the rate applicable to the role offered before the work was undertaken, and that there were no separate pay agreements.
The tribunal held that the wages claim was presented in time, but dismissed it because no unauthorised deduction was established. As the holiday pay claim depended on the wages claim succeeding, it was also dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes the claim as unauthorised deduction of wages and finds it had not been shown on the balance of probabilities that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay claim was entirely dependent on the wages claim succeeding and therefore also failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- balance of probabilities
- express or implied term
- business efficacy
- custom and practice
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.