Case 2204879/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms P Tung v Mace Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2204879/2020
- Decision date
- 11 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms P Tung
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge P Klimov, sitting alone at a remote hearing, found that Mace Limited had made an unlawful deduction from Ms P Tung's wages contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal found that wages had not been paid during the period from 23 March 2020 until 15 May 2020 and ordered the respondent to pay £4,307.60 gross, with the respondent to account to HMRC for any tax and national insurance due.
The tribunal also found that the respondent was in breach of contract when it dismissed Ms Tung without giving her one month's notice. No damages were awarded on that claim because the tribunal recorded that Ms Tung had already received two payments totalling the equivalent of one month's salary, so no further contractual sum was due.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unlawful deduction from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for the period 23 March 2020 to 15 May 2020. The respondent was ordered to pay £4,307.60 gross and to account to HMRC for any tax and NI due. | Upheld | — | £4,308 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent was in breach of contract by dismissing the claimant without one month's notice, but it made no damages award because the claimant had already received two payments totalling the equivalent of one month's salary. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,308
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.13 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.