Case 2409018/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Healy v Advanced Oncotherapy plc — 2024
- Case reference
- 2409018/2023
- Decision date
- 12 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Healy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent admitted in its ET3 that Miss Healy was entitled to unpaid salary of £19,558.92 for May to August 2023 and to a further £1,128.40 retention bonus payable in June 2023, described as one week's salary. The tribunal therefore ordered the respondent to pay £20,687.32 in settlement of the claimant's original complaints of unlawful deduction from wages.
The judgment also records a complaint about unpaid pension contributions. The claimant accepted that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to determine that complaint, and the tribunal recorded it as dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, so no written reasons were provided.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent admitted in ET3 section 6.1 that the claimant was entitled to unpaid salary of £19,558.92 for May to August 2023 and £1,128.40 for a retention bonus payable in June 2023, making a total of £20,687.32. | Upheld | — | £20,687 |
| Other | The complaint about unpaid pension contributions was said to be outside the tribunal's jurisdiction. The claimant accepted that position, and the judgment records the complaint as dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £20,687
- 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.