Case 2411939/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr T Willox v AAO UK Services Limited — 2024

Case reference: 2411939/2023
Decision date: 3 June 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Venue: Manchester

Indexed: 17 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr T Willox

Respondent

AAO UK Services Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a Rule 21 judgment determined in chambers on 23 May 2024 by Employment Judge K M Ross, with neither party in attendance. The Tribunal found the claimant's complaints of unpaid wages, one week's notice pay and accrued but untaken holiday pay to be well-founded and ordered the respondent to pay a total of £7,705.79 (gross) within 14 days of the judgment.

The Tribunal also found the claimant's complaint under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, alleging the respondent's failure to comply with the collective consultation requirements of section 188, to be well-founded. By way of protective award under section 189(3), the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant, who was dismissed for redundancy between 14-30 September 2023, a sum equivalent to remuneration for a 30-day period beginning 30 September 2023. The Recoupment Regulations apply to the protective award.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unlawful deduction from wages	Unpaid wages for August 2023 (£4,583.33) and September 2023 (£2,837.30).	Upheld	—	£7,421
Breach of contract	One week's notice pay (gross).	Upheld	—	£1,058
Holiday pay	Accrued but untaken holidays (gross).	Upheld	—	£227
Other	Protective award under s.189(3) TULRCA 1992 for failure to comply with s.188 collective consultation requirements; payment equivalent to remuneration for 30 days beginning 30 September 2023. Recoupment Regulations apply. No monetary figure quantified in the judgment.	Upheld	—	—

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £7,706; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.