Case 3311064/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Abayomi v Cordant Security Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3311064/2020
- Decision date
- 14 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Abayomi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant alleged that he had been promised regular work and did not receive the income he expected. The tribunal found that he had completed and been paid for one training shift, and that his written contract guaranteed 366 hours over a one-year measurement period but did not oblige the respondent to provide work at particular intervals or in particular weeks or months.
The tribunal found that the claimant was not contacted in early May because no work was available during the early lockdown period, and that later attempts were made by the respondent to offer him shifts. The claimant did not reply promptly, and the respondent later decided he had not passed probation and terminated the employment.
The tribunal found that the written contract was not a sham and reflected the agreement between the parties. It held that there was no breach of contract in relation to offering work or paying for work performed, and that the unauthorised deduction from wages claim failed because there was no unpaid work for which the claimant had not received the correct sums.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the written contract was the agreement between the parties and that the respondent had not breached it by failing to offer or pay for further work. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found there was no work done by the claimant for which he was not paid the correct sums. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Employment Rights Act
- ordinary Common Law principles for contract
- Autocleanse
- Uber
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.