Case 2200260/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. B. Allen v G4S Secure Solutions (UK) Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2200260/2019
- Decision date
- 20 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Goodman Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. B. Allen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claim under the Working Time Regulations. It also dismissed any breach of contract claim on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction while the contract continued.
Under section 12 of the Employment Rights Act, the tribunal found that the particulars of employment supplied to the claimant in December 2018 were in error as to holiday entitlement. It stated the correct particulars: the claimant was entitled to be paid 20 days at average shift hours per day and a further 8 days at 8.4 hours per day.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the respondent requested written reasons. No monetary award is stated in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | The judgment states that the claim under the Working Time Regulations fails. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that any breach of contract claim fails because the tribunal lacks jurisdiction while the contract continues. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment records a finding under section 12 of the Employment Rights Act that the particulars of employment supplied in December 2018 were in error as to holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 12 of the Employment Rights Act
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.