Case 2206654/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Jung v Simon Milner — 2022
- Case reference
- 2206654/2021
- Decision date
- 11 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sent
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Jung
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Ms S Jung was an employee of Simon Milner. It upheld her claim for unauthorised deductions in respect of arrears of pay and awarded £884.48 gross, and it also upheld her claim for unauthorised deductions in respect of holiday pay, awarding £615.75 gross.
The tribunal further upheld claims for breach of contract in relation to expenses and notice pay, awarding £250.74 gross and £54.58 gross respectively. It also made a statutory award because the respondent failed to provide a written statement of particulars of employment, ordering payment of two weeks' pay of £109.16 gross. The total award was £1,914.71 gross. The judgment was given orally at the hearing on 11 March 2022, and the published record contains the decision without written reasons.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions in respect of arrears of pay. | Upheld | — | £884 |
| Holiday pay | Unauthorised deductions in respect of holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £616 |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claim for expenses. | Upheld | — | £251 |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claim for failure to pay notice pay. | Upheld | — | £55 |
| Other | Award for failure to provide a written statement of particulars of employment, expressed as two weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £109 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,915
- 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.