Case 2602612/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Paul Baker v Chesterfield Borough Council — 2025
- Case reference
- 2602612/2023
- Decision date
- 10 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Singh Representation
- Venue
- Midlands East
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Paul Baker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as a gas engineer and claimed that clause 5 of his contract entitled him to basic pay plus the total cash value of tasks carried out. The respondent accepted that it calculated productivity pay by deducting basic pay from total cash value, but argued that this was the correct interpretation of the contract.
The tribunal found that the claimant had not shown, on the balance of probabilities, that "Productivity Payment" meant total cash value. It relied on the contract, the way pay had been calculated throughout the claimant's employment apart from special Covid arrangements, and the long-standing transparent application of that method to trade staff.
The tribunal did not decide whether the clause was fair or reasonable, because its role was to interpret the contract and decide whether it had been breached. It found no breach of contract and dismissed the claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claim was pursued as breach of contract and was not well-founded. Although the listing categories included unlawful deduction from wages, the reasons describe the adjudicated claim as breach of contract. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- golden rule of contractual interpretation
- balance of probabilities
- Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society (No.1)
- Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd
- Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher
- Burns International Security Services (UK) Ltd v Archer
- Carmichael v National Power plc
- Vision Events (UK) Ltd v Paterson
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.