Case 2200438/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms H Yang v Ousheng Capital Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2200438/2022
- Decision date
- 13 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms H Yang
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs H Yang worked for Ousheng Capital Limited as an Accounting Manager from 8 March 2020 to 31 October 2021. The respondent did not file an ET3 Grounds of Resistance, so Employment Judge E Burns decided the case on the papers under Rule 21. The hearing listed for 13 April 2022 did not take place. The claimant said she had not been paid in full and sought the missing payments identified in her claim form.
The tribunal accepted the ET1 and ordered the respondent to pay the sums identified in paragraph 4 of the judgment: net payments of £386.84 and £3,860.94, gross payments of £7,743.68, and pension contributions of £2,733.33. It also ordered the respondent to make the payments to the claimant and to the pension provider, and to account to HMRC for any tax and national insurance where due.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment after the respondent failed to file an ET3 Grounds of Resistance and the tribunal determined the claim without a hearing. The judgment records net payments of £386.84 and £3,860.94 as totalling £4,247.77, although those two figures add to £4,247.78 in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | £14,725 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,725
- across all upheld claims
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.