Case 1300053/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Zhu First v Mr X Zheng Second Respondent: Dekon Company Limited Third Respondent: Dream in Reality Limited (company dissolved) — 2021
- Case reference
- 1300053/2020
- Decision date
- 8 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W Zhu First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningSitting alone at Birmingham on 8 February 2021, Employment Judge Cookson found that Mr W Zhu was employed by the first respondent, Mr X Zheng, and had been unfairly dismissed contrary to s94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal also dismissed the claims against the second and third respondents.
The tribunal found that the first respondent breached the contract of employment by terminating it without notice. It held that the claimant was entitled to 7 weeks' notice of termination and awarded damages accordingly.
The tribunal further found unlawful deductions from wages. These were the non-payment of accrued but untaken holiday pay at the end of employment and the non-payment of sales commission. It awarded £2,202.48 gross for holiday pay and £1,179 net for sales commission.
On the written particulars issue, the tribunal held that the first respondent had failed to provide written particulars of employment and that compensation was due under s38(3) and (4) of the Employment Act 2002. It considered it just and equitable to award the higher amount of 4 weeks' pay, assessed at £2,100.
For unfair dismissal, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £4,462.50 and a compensatory award of £40,903.08. The total amounts payable by the first respondent were therefore £55,069.67, made up of the unfair dismissal awards, the breach of contract damages, the two unlawful deduction sums, and the s38 award.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was employed by the first respondent and was unfairly dismissed contrary to s94 ERA 1996. Claims against the second and third respondents were dismissed. | Upheld | — | £45,366 |
| Breach of contract | Damages were awarded because the first respondent terminated the claimant's employment without notice. The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to 7 weeks' notice of termination. | Upheld | — | £4,223 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unlawful deduction for accrued but untaken holiday pay at termination; awarded as a gross sum. | Upheld | — | £2,202 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unlawful deduction for unpaid sales commission; awarded net of tax and national insurance. | Upheld | — | £1,179 |
| Other | Compensation under s38(3) and (4) of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide written particulars of employment; the tribunal held it was just and equitable to award the higher amount of 4 weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £2,100 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £55,070
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £4,463
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £40,903
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.38(3) and (4) Employment Act 2002
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.