Case 2501768/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A McKenzie-Bayliss v The Crown Prosecution Service Heard by CVP — 2022
- Case reference
- 2501768/2021
- Decision date
- 12 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Langridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A McKenzie-Bayliss
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs A McKenzie-Bayliss, a Senior Crown Prosecutor, had been paid the London rate while working from home in Bedford under Loan Agreements with CPS Direct. Those agreements stated that her home address would become her permanent work location for the duration of the loan, that the location of the permanent workplace determined whether London or National pay applied, and that her RRA would be removed if her home postcode fell outside a London pay location. When the loan ended, she moved onto a permanent arrangement from 9 January 2017 working for CPS South East from her home, and later moved her home address to the North East.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim was for unlawful deductions from wages under Part II ERA 1996. The respondent's calculations of about £31,595 gross, later £18,237 and £16,852 net, were described as overpayment figures; they were not tribunal-awarded sums. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.13(3) ERA 1996
- s.14(1) ERA 1996
- Weatherilt v Cathay Pacific Airways
- Agarwal v Cardiff University
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.