Case 1601199/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr William Byron v The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs — 2024
- Case reference
- 1601199/2023
- Decision date
- 23 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge W Brady Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr William Byron
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by the respondent from 6 December 2021. The role had been advertised with a salary range of £19,550 to £21,020, but the written contract sent on 19 November 2021 stated a salary of £26,586. The claimant accepted the offer and later queried why his payslips showed a full-time equivalent rate of £21,249.
The respondent emailed the claimant on 8 April 2022 stating that the salary in the first written contract was a clerical error and issued a revised contract with the £21,249 figure. The tribunal found that the original contract was replaced by the revised contract on 8 April 2022, and that the claimant affirmed the new contract between 25 April 2022 and December 2022 by not raising a grievance, complaint, or further objection with HR or line managers during that period.
Having found that the new contract had been affirmed, the tribunal held that the last possible deduction would have been on 30 April 2022 or possibly 31 May 2022. The claimant presented his claim on 24 June 2023, outside the statutory time limit. The tribunal also found it was reasonably practicable for him to present the claim in time, noting that he had considered consulting ACAS in March 2022, and dismissed the claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes the claim as unauthorised deductions of wages and states it was not well-founded, not upheld, out of time, and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Solectron Scotland Ltd v Roper & others
- GAP Personnel Franchises Ltd v Robinson
- section 23(2)(a) ERA
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.