Case 2400507/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Kilgour v EPH Energy Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2400507/2022
- Decision date
- 6 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Kilgour
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr C Kilgour presented his claim on 5 January 2022 arising from employment as a plumber from 1 March 2019 to 13 October 2021. EPH Energy Ltd did not attend the hearing and served no witness evidence, so the tribunal determined the case from the claimant's documents, email exchanges and oral evidence, while considering the points raised in the response.
On overtime, the tribunal accepted the claimant's records and found that he had worked the hours claimed. It found total entitlement of £5,665, of which £2,920 had already been paid, leaving £2,745 outstanding. The respondent's asserted requirement for pre-authorisation was not proved on the evidence and, in any event, the tribunal found that any such condition had been waived by the parties' course of dealing and the respondent's repeated promises and part-payments. The unpaid overtime was therefore awarded as an unlawful deduction from wages.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was contractually entitled to reimbursement of £189 for materials and tool hire and to £150 as half the replacement cost of an angle grinder and battery that had been stolen during the employment. It held that these items were not recoverable as unlawful deductions because expenses are excluded from 'wages' by s.27(2)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, but awarded both sums as damages for breach of contract.
For the pay-adjustment claim, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had not been paid for two weeks when the respondent changed from fortnightly to monthly payments and assessed the shortfall at £509.12. It held that the limitation issue was answered because the claimant had agreed to defer payment and the relevant time ran from his leaving date of 13 October 2021 under s.23(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The awards were £2,745, £509.12 and £339, and the judgment directed that the payments be made without deductions, with the tax and National Insurance treatment set out separately.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid overtime worked between 24 August 2020 and 6 September 2021. The tribunal accepted the claimant's hours, found total entitlement of £5,665, credited £2,920 already paid, and awarded the £2,745 balance. The respondent's asserted pre-authorisation requirement was not proved and was treated as waived in any event. | Upheld | — | £2,745 |
| Breach of contract | Reimbursement for materials and tool-hire expenses. The tribunal found the claimant had incurred the sums and was contractually entitled to reimbursement, but held the claim was not recoverable as an unlawful deduction from wages because expenses are excluded from wages under s.27(2)(b) ERA 1996. It awarded £189 as damages for breach of contract. | Upheld | — | £189 |
| Breach of contract | Half the replacement cost of an angle grinder and battery said to have been stolen during the employment. The tribunal found the respondent had agreed to pay £150 and awarded that sum as damages for breach of contract. | Upheld | — | £150 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for two weeks' pay when the respondent changed from fortnightly to monthly payments. The tribunal assessed the shortfall at £509.12 and held the claim was in time because the claimant had deferred payment until he left on 13 October 2021. The judgment contains an internal date inconsistency: the analysis refers to June/July 2020, while the summary paragraph refers to June to July 2021. | Upheld | — | £509 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,593
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.27(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.23(2) 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.