Case 2305191/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Brendan Horan Mr Nurulhaq Ansari Mrs Maggie Davies Mr Karl Mackay Mr Alan Murray Mr Rob Nugent Mrs Julie Orton Mr Chris Page Mr Hafeez Sekoni v OCS Group UK Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2305191/2025
- Decision date
- 27 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tsamados
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Brendan Horan Mr Nurulhaq Ansari Mrs Maggie Davies Mr Karl Mackay Mr Alan Murray Mr Rob Nugent Mrs Julie Orton Mr Chris Page Mr Hafeez Sekoni
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants, employed as Security Managers or Security Supervisors, sought a 10% pay increase which had been paid to security guards after an increase in the Living Wage in April 2024. The respondent said the claimants had no contractual right to that increase because they were already paid above the Living Wage rate.
The tribunal found that the claimants' contracts provided for a pay review rather than a contractual right to a pay rise. It also found that the respondent's contract with the client allowed recovery of Living Wage increases for relevant staff, but excluded staff already paid above the Living Wage.
The tribunal concluded that the claimants had not established a contractual entitlement to the pay increase. The sums claimed were therefore not properly payable, so no unauthorised deductions arose and the claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal described the complaints as unauthorised deductions from wages and found they were not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.