Case 2601858/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Grant Jeffreys v Global Fire and Security Systems Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2601858/2024
- Decision date
- 5 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Grant Jeffreys
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Ahmed, sitting alone via CVP across three days, gave a reserved judgment in a multi-headed claim by a Service Sales Engineer dismissed by Global Fire and Security Systems Ltd on 4 July 2024 for alleged gross misconduct (allowing his partner to accompany him to a work site at the Wellington Hotel and allegedly being dishonest about her presence).
Many of the unlawful deductions were agreed by consent and the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £1,956.82 made up of 11 separately itemised heads. The claimant was also awarded £1,459 in outstanding commission, the tribunal preferring the claimant's calculations over the respondent's unsupported figures. The claim for holiday pay accrued and carried over was dismissed: it was out of time and the claimant could have re-booked refused dates, with 4 days having been agreed for carry-over. The deduction of £620 for parking fines was found to be a lawful deduction under clause 4.5 of the contract.
The wrongful dismissal/breach of contract claim succeeded. Mr Grantham, the only witness to the alleged incident, did not give evidence. Applying McCormack, the tribunal found the conduct could not be said to render future performance impossible, the alleged health and safety breach was unparticularised, there was insufficient evidence of dishonesty, and the respondent had failed to discharge the evidential burden of gross misconduct. The claimant was entitled to 6 weeks' contractual notice at £500 gross/week (£3,000). No ACAS uplift was awarded as no part of the Code was identified as having been breached.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Various unlawful deductions made by consent: mileage fine £25; absence 4/1/24 £42.35; Bank Holiday holiday pay £369.28; unpaid pay increase £333.34; unpaid overtime £138.72; call out wages £140; standby £225; van damage £250; final pay £303.13; congestion charges £30; unpaid holiday pay £100. PDF text truncated at 15,000 of 31,139 chars. | Upheld | — | £1,957 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Wrongful dismissal/breach of contract: 6 weeks' notice at £500 gross/week. Tribunal found respondent failed to discharge evidential burden of establishing gross misconduct (key witness Mr Grantham did not give evidence). Applying McCormack, claimant's actions could not be said to be such misconduct that contract was rendered impossible to continue. | Upheld | — | £3,000 |
| Other | Outstanding commission payments. | Upheld | — | £1,459 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay accrued/carried over claim dismissed: out of time, and claimant could have re-booked refused requests; respondent had agreed to 4 days' carry over. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Parking fines deduction (£620) found lawful under clause 4.5 of contract. No ACAS uplift applied. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,416
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- ACAS Code of Practice
- McCormack
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.