Case 1400077/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Liang v Kury UK Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 1400077/2025
- Decision date
- 6 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Richardson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Liang
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, an electrical engineer employed by the respondent (which sponsored his skilled work visa) from July 2021 to October 2024, brought claims of unfair dismissal, unauthorised deduction from wages, and unpaid holiday pay. The tribunal dismissed the first two and upheld the holiday pay claim in the gross sum of £4,169.23.
On the deductions claim, the tribunal found the contract had been renewed for a fresh three-year fixed term in July 2024 (when the respondent procured the second skilled work visa) and that the contractual provision for pro-rata reimbursement of visa costs on early resignation continued to apply to the renewed contract. The deductions made by the respondent in respect of the visa fees were therefore lawful.
On holiday pay, the respondent acknowledged it had not informed the claimant during his employment that any leave not taken by year end which could not be carried forward would be lost, contrary to regulation 13(16)(c) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. As a consequence, regulation 13(17) WTR applied and the claimant was entitled to carry over untaken statutory leave (up to four weeks per year) under regulation 13. The tribunal calculated 11 days outstanding from 2021/22, 15 days from 2022/23 and 6 days from 2024 (after the 10 days already paid), making a balance of 16 days at the daily rate equating to £4,169.23 gross.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal claim 'not well conceived' and dismissed. PDF truncated from 35,695 characters. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unlawful deduction from wages claim (concerning visa fee recoupment) dismissed; tribunal found the deductions were lawful under the renewed contract. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | 16 days accrued but untaken statutory holiday. Respondent had failed to give the regulation 13(16)(c) WTR warning so regulation 13(17) carry-over applied. | Upheld | — | £4,169 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,169
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.43 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Part II Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 13 Working Time Regulations 1998
- regulation 13(16)(c) Working Time Regulations 1998
- regulation 13(17) Working Time Regulations 1998
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.