Case 3327589/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F Gaye v Securitas Security Services (UK) Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3327589/2019
- Decision date
- 17 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr F Gaye
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaint of unlawful deductions concerning expenses without determining its merits, because it had not been presented within the relevant time limit.
The tribunal found well founded the claimant's complaint of unlawful deduction from wages and/or breach of entitlement to paid holiday pursuant to the Working Time Regulations. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £430.19 as compensation for financial loss attributable to the unlawful deduction.
Claims and outcomes
3 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 | The complaint of unlawful deductions concerning expenses was dismissed without determination of the merits because it was not presented within the relevant time limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the complaint of unlawful deduction from wages well founded. The award was stated as compensation for financial loss attributable to the unlawful deduction. | Upheld | — | £430 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment refers to breach of entitlement to paid holiday pursuant to the Working Time Regulations as well founded, but the award is not split separately from the unlawful deduction claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £430
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £430
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.