Case 2300332/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Marshall v Ge-Aet — 2023
- Case reference
- 2300332/2023
- Decision date
- 6 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Khalil
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Marshall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Khalil, sitting alone at London South on 18 August 2023, found that Mr J Marshall’s claims against GE-AET Ltd succeeded on the merits. The tribunal held that the claim for unauthorised deductions was well founded and awarded £1,102.84 net. It also found the claim for a Statutory Redundancy Payment well founded and awarded £1,626.92.
The tribunal further upheld two breach of contract claims: notice pay in the sum of £1,702.71 net, and pension contributions in the sum of £508.76. A holiday pay claim under Regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 was also well founded and succeeded, with £1,777.76 gross awarded.
The claimant’s application for an ACAS uplift was refused. No decision was made on costs at the hearing, and the judgment records that the claimant remained at liberty to apply under Rule 76 with supporting documentation within the normal time limit. The total of the sums awarded in the judgment is £6,718.99.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim described in the judgment as unauthorised deductions. | Upheld | — | £1,103 |
| Other | Application for an ACAS uplift refused. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Statutory Redundancy Payment. | Upheld | — | £1,627 |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claim for notice pay. | Upheld | — | £1,703 |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claim for pension contributions. | Upheld | — | £509 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay claim under Regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Upheld | — | £1,778 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,719
- 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.