Case 2409378/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Kaye v Advanced Oncotherapy plc HELD AT: Manchester — 2024
- Case reference
- 2409378/2023
- Decision date
- 11 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Kaye
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the respondent had admitted in its ET3 that the claimant was entitled to unpaid salary of £14,853.32 for May to August 2023 and a retention bonus of £826.92 payable in June 2023. It ordered the respondent to pay £15,680.24 in total in settlement of the original unlawful deduction from wages complaints.
The claimant accepted that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to determine the complaint about unpaid pension contributions that should have been made on his behalf. That complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal. The tribunal also allowed the claimant's application to amend his claim to update losses arising after the original claim form, with that complaint to be dealt with through case management orders in the Jimenez multiple.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent admitted entitlement to unpaid salary for May to August 2023 and a retention bonus payable in June 2023; the tribunal ordered payment in settlement of the original complaints of unlawful deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £15,680 |
| Other | The complaint about unpaid pension contributions was dismissed upon withdrawal after the claimant accepted that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to determine it. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,680
- 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.