Claimant v K9 Stata Security Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant was a worker under s.230(3) ERA 1996, but he failed to prove unlawful deductions. Despite claiming £1000 was deducted from monthly invoices totalling £30,000, the claimant only produced five invoices during the entire period. Three of those were paid in full. The evidence showed a complicated payment pattern including advance payments and loans. The tribunal found it impossible from the incomplete evidence to determine exactly what was invoiced and paid, and concluded the claimant had not proved on the balance of probabilities that he had been underpaid.
Facts
The claimant worked as a security guard for the respondent from April 2021, invoicing monthly in arrears for work done. He claimed the respondent deducted £1000 from each monthly invoice, totalling around £30,000 over 30 months. The respondent argued the claimant was not a worker and denied any underpayments. The evidence consisted of incomplete bank statements, invoices and messages from both parties, showing a complicated payment pattern including advance payments and loans.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant was a worker under s.230(3) ERA 1996 because he had no meaningful power of delegation and was not running his own business. However, the unlawful deduction claim failed because the claimant failed to prove his case. He produced only five invoices, three of which were paid in full, and failed to produce a proper schedule of loss despite being given opportunities to do so. The incomplete and contradictory evidence meant the tribunal could not determine on the balance of probabilities that any underpayments had occurred.
Practical note
A claimant must prove unlawful deductions with clear documentary evidence showing what was invoiced and what was paid, particularly where the payment pattern is complicated and includes advances or loans — inadequate record-keeping will result in failure of the claim even where worker status is established.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1300206/2024
- Decision date
- 16 August 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- security guard
- Service
- 3 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No