Case 2408975/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Giles v Advanced Oncotherapy plc HELD AT: Manchester — 2024
- Case reference
- 2408975/2023
- Decision date
- 12 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Giles
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not attend the hearing on 29 February 2024 before Employment Judge Johnson at Manchester. In its ET3 presented on 30 November 2023 the respondent had admitted that the claimant was entitled to unpaid salary of £24,176.52 (May to August 2023), a retention bonus of £1,394.80 payable in June 2023, a refund of £604.42 in respect of additional pension contributions deducted from the claimant, and £1,869.03 representing 6.7 days of accrued but unpaid holiday at termination on 9 September 2023. The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant a total of £14,621.23 in settlement of the original complaints of unlawful deduction from wages and holiday pay.
The Tribunal recorded that the claimant accepted it had no jurisdiction over three further matters in the original claim: a complaint about unpaid employer pension contributions, a complaint for interest contrary to the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, and an unfair dismissal complaint that had been presented on 23 August 2023 while the claimant was still employed. These three complaints were dismissed on withdrawal.
The claimant's 5 January 2024 application to amend his claim to add further unpaid wages and a complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was refused. The Tribunal held that the amendment was out of time following the effective date of termination on 9 September 2023, that no further early conciliation certificate had been provided as required by the Employment Rights Act 1996, and that it therefore lacked jurisdiction to hear the proposed amended complaints.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Respondent admitted in ET3 (section 6.1) liability for unpaid salary (£24,176.52 for May-August 2023), unpaid retention bonus (£1,394.80), and refund of additional pension contribution deductions (£604.42). The judgment states the total sum payable in settlement of the unlawful deduction from wages and holiday pay complaints is £14,621.23, which is lower than the sum of the admitted components; the discrepancy is not explained on the face of the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Respondent admitted entitlement to 6.7 days of accrued but unpaid holiday at termination on 9 September 2023, in the gross sum of £1,869.03. Included in the aggregate £14,621.23 figure awarded for the unlawful deduction from wages and holiday pay complaints. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Listed by gov.uk under Working Time Regulations but the judgment text addresses the working time aspect only through the holiday pay element. No separate WTR finding is recorded; included here for listing parity with low confidence. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The original unfair dismissal complaint, brought in the claim form of 23 August 2023 while the claimant was still employed, was dismissed on withdrawal because the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction (claim presented prior to dismissal). | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Claimant's 5 January 2024 application to amend to add a constructive unfair dismissal complaint was not allowed; the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the proposed amendment was presented out of time after the effective date of termination on 9 September 2023 and no further early conciliation certificate had been obtained. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,621
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990
- Employment Rights Act 1996
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.