Case 1301951/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L. Nguyen v Enorh Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1301951/2019
- Decision date
- 21 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge V. Jones Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L. Nguyen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss L. Nguyen brought a claim against Enorh Limited for unauthorised deductions from wages. Employment Judge V. Jones found the claim well-founded and held that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages between 30 November 2018 and 15 January 2019 inclusive, contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £644.02, calculated as 82.25 hours at £7.83 per hour, under section 24 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The written record notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claim well-founded and held that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages between 30 November 2018 and 15 January 2019 inclusive, contrary to section 13 ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £644 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £644
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 24 Employment Rights Act 1996
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.