Case 3314474/2023 · Employment Tribunal
S Magazov v Lumora Limited t/a Erba Molecular — 2024
- Case reference
- 3314474/2023
- Decision date
- 19 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Feeney REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
S Magazov
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant started work for the respondent on 31 August 2021 after negotiating terms that included a performance-related bonus. The offer letter said he would be entitled to receive a performance-related bonus of up to 20% of salary, with exact details and criteria to be agreed on joining. The tribunal found that this wording created a contractual bonus entitlement, even though the employment contract itself did not spell out the bonus formula, and it rejected the respondent's case that the bonus was wholly discretionary and not contractually due.
On time limits, the tribunal held that the bonus payments were a regular annual payment and therefore the complaint was about a series of deductions. It found the claim in time. The tribunal said the last payment complained about was the 2023 bonus, which it treated as due to be assessed in January 2024 and paid in April 2024; because the claimant had been made redundant and the final payments were made on 4 November 2023, time ran from then. In the alternative, it said the claim would still have been in time because the claimant knew from 1 August 2023 that he was being made redundant and had time to commence proceedings after taking account of early conciliation.
On the merits, the tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to a bonus on all three occasions referred to. It accepted that the claimant received £3,000 for 2021, £2,500 for 2022, and no bonus for 2023 after redundancy, but held on the evidence that there was no proper basis for the respondent's approach that he had no contractual entitlement. The tribunal also noted that the claimant's own method of calculating the sums due was not rational and did not align with the respondent's annual appraisal and payment cycle.
The tribunal therefore upheld the unlawful deduction from wages claim and directed that a remedy hearing be listed to determine what the claimant was entitled to in respect of the three deductions. No final monetary award was made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the bonus was a contractual term, found the claim in time as a series of deductions, and found that unlawful deductions occurred in respect of the bonus; quantum was left for a remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.27 Employment Rights Act 1996
- New Century Cleaning Company Limited v Church (2000)
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.