Case 1801496/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Kenyon v The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care AT A PRELIMINARY HEARING BY TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL — 2020
- Case reference
- 1801496/2020
- Decision date
- 11 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Kenyon
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing by telephone conference call on 7 May 2020 before Employment Judge Lancaster. The claimant, Mr R Kenyon, appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel. The tribunal amended the respondent's name to The Secretary of State for Health and Social Security.
After clarification of the claimant's complaints, he accepted that the Employment Tribunal had no jurisdiction in law to hear a breach of contract claim from an existing employee. He also accepted that, because he had not yet been subject to any actual underpayment of salary, there could be no claim for unauthorised deductions from wages.
The claimant further accepted that the tribunal could not make a declaration about future rates of pay or generally about any alleged failure to follow due process in the past. In light of that clarification, the tribunal recorded that there was no subsisting complaint before it that it had power to deal with.
The judgment states that the claims were dismissed upon withdrawal. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | At the preliminary hearing the claimant accepted the Tribunal had no jurisdiction in law to hear a breach of contract claim from an existing employee. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant accepted that, as he had not yet been subject to any actual underpayment of salary, there was no claim for unauthorised deductions from wages. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.