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 namedMr J Liang
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 claims adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Upheld | — | £4,169 |
Legal tests applied
6 referencesRemedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,169
Source document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.