Case 3303949/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Maurizio Adriano v Clientsinfocus Limited T/A Home Instead Senior Care Heard: By CVP On: 15 March 2021 — 2021
- Case reference
- 3303949/2020
- Decision date
- 6 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Warren Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Maurizio Adriano
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Maurizio Adriano applied on 1 February 2021 to amend the claim to add wrongful dismissal or breach of contract arising from the 1 June 2020 dismissal. The tribunal refused the amendment. It applied the principles in Selkent Bus v Moore and the time-limit provisions in regulation 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, and found that the application was made eight months after dismissal and five months after the time limit had expired. The tribunal also found that it had been reasonably practicable for a separate claim or amendment application to have been made in time.
On the live unlawful deduction from wages claim, the tribunal found that Mr Adriano began employment as a care giver on 26 November 2019 under a contract describing him as an employee. The contract said the company could not guarantee hours or payment where no work was available, and it also provided for suspension during the notice period and immediate termination for gross misconduct.
The tribunal found that on 5 February 2020 Mr Harrington removed all of Mr Adriano's calls while investigating concerns about conduct and performance, and that Mr Adriano received no further work or pay until the employment ended by letter dated 1 June 2020. It held that the respondent was entitled to choose not to offer work while it investigated those concerns and was not obliged to pay him. The tribunal made no finding on whether the concerns about conduct were well founded, and the claim for unpaid wages was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the respondent was entitled to stop offering work while investigating concerns about Mr Adriano's conduct and was not obliged to pay him during that period. It therefore rejected the unpaid wages claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- Selkent Bus v Moore [1996] ICR 836
- Prakesh v Wolverhampton City Council UKEAT 0140/06
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, regulation 7
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd [1978] ICR 943 CA
- Palmer v Southend Borough Council 1984 IRLR 119 CA
- Marks and Spencer v Williams-Ryan 2005 IRLR 565
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Limited [1974] ICR 53
- Northamptonshire County Council v Entwhistle UKEAT 0540/09/ZT
- Riley v Tesco Stores Ltd [1980] ICR 323CA
- RBS v Theobald UKEAT/0444/06
- Ashcroft v Haberdashers' Aske's Boys' School [2008] ICR 613
- Remploy Ltd v Brain UKEAT/0465/16
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.