Case 6016023/2024 · Employment Tribunal
G McFarlane v Alvarius Pharmaceuticals Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6016023/2024
- Decision date
- 29 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
G McFarlane
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Anstis held that G McFarlane's complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was well-founded and ordered Alvarius Pharmaceuticals Ltd to pay £117,500. The complaint of breach of contract concerning notice pay was also well-founded, with damages of £25,000 awarded.
The holiday pay complaint was well-founded because the respondent had not paid the claimant for holiday accrued but untaken when the employment ended. The tribunal awarded £12,455.91 for holiday pay and dismissed the claimant's other, unspecified claims. The three awards total £154,955.91; each stated figure is gross and may be satisfied by paying the net sum due while accounting to HMRC for any required tax and National Insurance deductions.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £117,500 |
| Breach of contract | Damages for breach of contract in relation to notice pay. | Upheld | — | £25,000 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction arising from failure to pay for accrued but untaken holiday when the claimant's employment ended. | Upheld | — | £12,456 |
| Other | The judgment dismisses the claimant's other claims without identifying their types or number. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £154,956
- across all upheld claims
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.