Case 2400647/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Pope v Nation Security UK Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2400647/2021
- Decision date
- 18 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Pope
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr Pope was engaged by Nation Security UK Limited as a worker under the ERA but was not an employee. As a result, it had no jurisdiction to determine the breach of contract claim under the Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. The tribunal also recorded that, in any event, the claimant had not proved that the loss he claimed was caused by the alleged contractual breach.
The tribunal declared that the respondent had failed to provide itemised pay statements in accordance with its statutory obligations, contrary to s8 ERA. Under s11 ERA, it set out the missing particulars that should have been included, covering the claimant's hours and gross pay for the relevant weekly periods from 27 July 2020 to 26 October 2020 at £9 per hour. The judgment records that there had been occasions when the claimant was under- and over-paid, but the parties agreed that he had since been paid the correct amounts on the basis of that information.
The tribunal also declared that there had been an unauthorised deduction from pay in relation to holiday pay to which the claimant was entitled. It noted, however, that the correct holiday pay had since been paid and that no sum remained outstanding to the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was engaged as a worker under the ERA but was not an employee, so it had no jurisdiction to consider the breach of contract claim under the Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. It also said that, in any event, the claimant had not proved on the balance of probabilities that the loss claimed was caused by the alleged breach. | Other | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal declared that the respondent had not provided itemised pay statements in accordance with its statutory obligations, contrary to s8 ERA. It also made a declaration under s11 ERA setting out the missing particulars that should have been provided for the relevant weeks. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal declared that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's pay in relation to holiday pay to which he was entitled. The parties agreed that the correct holiday pay had since been paid and that no sum remained outstanding. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s8 ERA 1996
- s11 ERA 1996
- Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
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.