Case 2302740/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. T Marinov v Advatex Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2302740/2022
- Decision date
- 3 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McLaren Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. T Marinov
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal rejected the unlawful deduction from wages complaint relating to an unpaid bonus. It found that the amount had already been paid, so there was no unlawful deduction to remedy.
The unfair dismissal complaint succeeded. The tribunal held that there was no fair reason for dismissal and that the dismissal was both procedurally and substantively unfair.
The claimant was awarded a total of £2,834.54. This comprised a basic award of £1,599, a compensatory award of £735.54 made up of eight days' unpaid wages of £639.60 plus a 15% uplift of £95.94 for failure to follow the ACAS code of conduct, and £500 for loss of statutory rights.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint was for unpaid bonus. The tribunal found the amount had already been paid, so the claim did not succeed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found there was no fair reason for dismissal and that the dismissal was both procedurally and substantively unfair. The award included a basic award, compensation for unpaid wages, an ACAS uplift, and £500 for loss of statutory rights. | Upheld | — | £2,835 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,835
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,599
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £736
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.