Case 1301013/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Mr J. Hughes — 2018
- Case reference
- 1301013/2018
- Decision date
- 24 September 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Algazy QC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Advanced Therapeutics (UK) Ltd was the claimant's employer. It dismissed the claims against Mr J. Hughes and Mrs Alison Hughes. The hearing was held in Birmingham on 24 September 2018 before Employment Judge Algazy QC.
The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the unlawful deductions claim because it had been presented out of time. It therefore did not determine that claim on the merits.
The redundancy payment claim succeeded. The tribunal found that the claim was well founded and declared that the claimant was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £4,292.28, calculated as 12 weeks' pay at £357.69 per week.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the unlawful deductions claim because it was presented out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the redundancy payment claim well founded and held that the claimant was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £4,292.28, calculated as 12 weeks' pay at £357.69 per week. | Upheld | — | £4,292 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,292
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.