Case 2211412/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K C Yeung v Phoenix Human Resources Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2211412/2023
- Decision date
- 15 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Spencer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K C Yeung
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment after the Respondent failed to present an ET3 or Grounds of Resistance. The claim and notice of preliminary hearing were sent to the registered office, an email was sent to bk@phoenixhospitality.uk on 9 November 2023 requiring a response by 4pm on 13 November 2023, and no response was received. The Respondent did not attend the preliminary hearing on 15 November 2023, and Employment Judge Spencer determined the claim without a further hearing on the basis of the ET1 and the Claimant's account.
The Tribunal held that the Claimant's claim for unpaid wages, including unpaid employer pension contributions, succeeded and ordered the Respondent to pay £9,280. It also held that the Claimant's holiday pay claim succeeded and ordered payment of £600. The judgment records both awards as gross figures.
The Claimant's race discrimination claim was dismissed on withdrawal. The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay a total of £9,880 to the Claimant.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes this as a claim for unpaid wages, including unpaid employer pension contributions. | Upheld | — | £9,280 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £600 |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the race discrimination claim was 'dismissed on withdrawal'. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,880
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21
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.