Case 2300944/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr G Anderson barrister — 2023
- Case reference
- 2300944/2021
- Decision date
- 13 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Truscott KC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Ibnou Cheikh was employed by Old St Labs Limited from 30 September 2019 to 7 February 2021. The tribunal recorded that, during the Covid-19 disruption, the respondent delayed bonuses, later decided to give fully vested shares instead of cash, and the claimant received those shares in September 2020 without complaint at the time. She resigned in December 2020 and later raised a grievance about the share allocation and bonus conversion before presenting her tribunal claim on 9 March 2021.
The tribunal dismissed the claims against Mark Perera, Alexander Short and Adam Woolliscroft for want of jurisdiction because no early conciliation certificate had been obtained for those respondents. It then struck out the share options claims, both as unlawful deduction of wages and as breach of contract claims, holding that the scheme was separate from the employment contract, that no sum was payable on grant of an option, and that any entitlement related to share ownership rather than wages. The tribunal also rejected the contract claim because the scheme was discretionary and the claimant had agreed to its terms.
The bonus claims, pleaded both as unlawful deduction of wages and breach of contract, were also struck out. The tribunal found the bonus was discretionary, that the respondent had converted the bonus to shares, that the claimant accepted the shares and later said the amount had been clarified, and that the claim was out of time in any event. It also noted that the claimant had no contractual entitlement to a bonus once the board had exercised its discretion.
On sex discrimination, the tribunal refused most of the proposed amendment and struck out the ET1 allegations as insubstantial, largely out of time, and lacking a satisfactory explanation for the late pleading. Applying the Selkent balance of injustice and hardship and the rule 37 no reasonable prospect test, it allowed only one further allegation about Mark Perera not calling the claimant personally on her resignation to proceed as further information, with separate case management directions.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claims against the individual respondents were dismissed as outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction because no early conciliation certificate had been obtained for them. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Share options compensation claim: the scheme was discretionary and separate from the employment contract; no sum was payable on grant of an option and the claim was struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Share options claim pleaded as breach of contract: the scheme did not form part of the contract, was discretionary, and no contractual entitlement to payment arose. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Discretionary bonus claim pleaded as unlawful deduction of wages: the respondent converted the bonus to shares, the claimant accepted the shares, and the claim was struck out as out of time and without reasonable prospect. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Bonus claim pleaded as breach of contract: the tribunal held there was no contractual entitlement to a bonus once the board exercised its discretion, and the claim was struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Sex discrimination allegations in the ET1 were struck out except for one allegation about Mark Perera not calling the claimant personally on resignation, which was left for separate case management. |
Legal tests applied
20 references- Commissioners for HMRC v Garau
- E.On Control Solutions Ltd v Caspall
- Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy v Parry
- Chandhok v Tirkey
- Selkent Bus Company Ltd v Moore
- Abercrombie v Aga Rangemaster Ltd
- Safeway Stores Ltd v TGWU
- Galilee v Commission of Police of the Metropolis
- Vaughan v Modality Partnership
- Rule 37(1)(a) no reasonable prospect of success
- Delaney v Staples
- New Century Cleaning Co Ltd v Church
- Nosworthy v Instinctif Partners Ltd
- Hack v St Christopher's Fellowship
- Balls v Downham Market High School and College
- Dolby
- Tayside Public Transport Co Ltd v Reilly
- Mechkarov v Citibank N A
- Anyanwu v South Bank Students' Union
- Ahir v British Airways plc
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.