Case 2205766/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss H Y Li v Primetime SEO Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2205766/2019
- Decision date
- 23 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Andrew James
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss H Y Li
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment after Primetime SEO Limited failed to present a response. Miss H Y Li had stated in her claim form that she was owed six months' unpaid wages, and the tribunal recorded that Companies House showed the respondent remained active. The tribunal found the claim for unauthorised deduction of wages well-founded and ordered the respondent to pay £10,500 less tax and national insurance, reflecting six months' wages at £1,750 per month.
The tribunal also found a separate claim under section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 well-founded. It recorded that wages were paid to the claimant on 6 and 22 November 2019 and that deductions were made without providing a written statement setting out the amount or purpose of the deductions. The tribunal ordered repayment of the difference between the gross pay of £1,750 and the total amount paid on those dates, but it did not specify a single quantified sum for that part of the order.
The tribunal noted that it did not have power to order the provision of payslips or a P60. The hearing listed for 24 March 2020 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for six months' unpaid wages at £1,750 per month; the order was expressed as £10,500 less tax and national insurance. | Upheld | — | £10,500 |
| Other | Section 8 ERA 1996 claim relating to deductions made on 6 and 22 November 2019 without a written statement setting out the amount or purpose of deductions; the judgment does not state a specific sum for this order. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Rights Act 1996 ss. 8, 11, 12, 13, 23 and 24
- Rule 21 judgment
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.