Case 1403523/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr KC Chan v Marks and Spencer plc — 2020
- Case reference
- 1403523/2019
- Decision date
- 13 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr KC Chan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment concerned only part of the claim. The Tribunal struck out the complaints of unpaid notice pay, unpaid holiday pay and non-payment of wages.
The Tribunal had written to the claimant on 22 May 2020 giving an opportunity to explain why those complaints should not be struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant failed to make written representations, failed to make sufficient representations, or failed to request a hearing.
The judgment recorded that the claimant's remaining claims remained listed for a hearing on 8-12 February 2021, with a catch-up telephone conference listed for 19 January 2021.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The complaint was described as unpaid notice pay and was struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success after the claimant failed to make sufficient representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The complaint was described as unpaid holiday pay and was struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success after the claimant failed to make sufficient representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint was described as non-payment of wages and was struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success after the claimant failed to make sufficient representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.