Mr Alexander Lazenby v Represented by: Mr M Salt - Lay Representative Halliburton Management Ltd — 2026

The claimant was employed by Halliburton Management Ltd as a Logging Geologist from 31 January 2022. He claimed unlawful deduction from wages on the basis that, between July 2024 and March 2025, he worked as a Data Engineer but was paid at the lower Logging Geologist rate. At the hearing it was confirmed that the claim was for unlawful deduction of wages only, not breach of contract, and the tribunal limited its findings to the time-bar issue.

The tribunal found that the claimant considered he began acting up as a Data Engineer on 17 July 2024 and that payslips from the end of July 2024 onwards showed no pay rise had been applied. It recorded that the claimant raised a formal grievance on 4 June 2025, attended a Stage 1 grievance meeting on 24 June 2025, appealed the Stage 1 outcome on 11 August 2025, started ACAS Early Conciliation while offshore, received an ACAS certificate on 22 September 2025, and presented the ET1 on 11 October 2025.

Applying s.23 ERA 1996, Wharton and Taylorplan, the tribunal rejected the claimant's argument that time ran from the 29 May 2025 payslip, when he first received the higher rate without back pay. It held that the time limit ran from the payment from which the deduction was made, or the last deduction in a series, and that the claimant had opportunities from around the end of July 2024 to find out about his statutory rights and the applicable time limit. The tribunal found that the respondent's grievance documents were silent on statutory time limits but were not misleading, and that the respondent was not under an obligation to advise the claimant about possible tribunal claims against itself.

The tribunal was not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented within the s.23 time limit, or that it was presented within a reasonable further period. It found that the internal grievance and appeal process did not of itself prevent timely presentation, that the claimant did not wait for the appeal outcome before presenting the ET1, and that his mistaken belief about the relevant start date for limitation did not give the tribunal jurisdiction. The unlawful deduction from wages claim was therefore dismissed and no remedy was awarded.