Case 3310671/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Carryl v G4S Aviation Services (UK) Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3310671/2021
- Decision date
- 22 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Knowles Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Carryl
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Watford by video on 21 and 22 November 2022 before Employment Judge Knowles. It held that the Claimant’s unfair dismissal claim was not well founded and failed.
The tribunal found that the Claimant’s breach of contract claim and unlawful deductions from wages claim were both well founded and succeeded. It ordered the Respondent, G4S Aviation Services (UK) Ltd, to pay the gross sum of £534.78, being the amount unlawfully deducted from the Claimant’s wages.
No separate damages were awarded for breach of contract because the components of loss were the same as the unlawful deductions award and would have amounted to double recovery. The tribunal also recorded that the Respondent was responsible for accounting to HMRC for any statutory deductions applicable to the award, and that the Recoupment Regulations did not apply.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | No damages were awarded because the components of loss were the same as the unlawful deductions award and would have involved double recovery. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal ordered payment of the gross sum of £534.78, described as the amount unlawfully deducted from the Claimant’s wages. | Upheld | — | £535 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £535
- across all upheld claims
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.