Case 2411508/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Pattalwar v Advanced Oncotherapy plc HELD AT: Manchester — 2024
- Case reference
- 2411508/2023
- Decision date
- 13 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Pattalwar
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought an unlawful deduction from wages complaint, saying he had not been paid wages for May 2023 and part of June 2023. The respondent resisted the claim but acknowledged that sums for May and June had not been paid, subject to its stated calculation for June after annual leave.
The Tribunal found that the claim should have been presented by 30 September 2023 after allowing for ACAS early conciliation, but it was not presented until 1 November 2023. The claimant relied on his expectation that the matter would be resolved and on financial stress caused by non-payment.
The Tribunal held that the claimant had not shown it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, nor that the further delay was reasonable. It therefore dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction without determining the underlying wage entitlement.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint concerned alleged unpaid wages for May 2023 and 1 to 23 June 2023. It was dismissed because it was presented out of time and the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear it; the merits of the wages complaint were not adjudicated. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 23(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 23(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 23(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 2 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
- London International College v Sen
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan
- Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd v Britton
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.