Mr P Connor v Equifax Ltd — 2019

Case reference: 1803699/2019
Decision date: 19 September 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Bright
Venue: Leeds

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr P Connor

Respondent

Equifax Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mr Connor claimed that, when recruited through Sevensteps, he had been told he would do two weeks’ paid on-call work each month and that his annual remuneration would therefore be higher than his basic salary. The tribunal accepted that this was his understanding at interview, but found that the offer from Equifax was contingent on him signing a written contract and that the written contract, which he did sign, contained an entire agreement clause and did not guarantee on-call work or payment for it unless he was required to participate in an on-call rota.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unlawful deduction from wages	Claim dismissed. The tribunal held that the written contract did not entitle Mr Connor to on-call payments unless he was required to participate in an on-call rota, which he did not do.	Dismissed	—	—
Breach of contract	Damages for breach of contract were dismissed for the same reason: the tribunal found no contractual entitlement to on-call pay or to rota participation absent a requirement under the written contract.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.