Case 2214576/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Kun Qin v Servizon Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2214576/2023
- Decision date
- 10 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woodhead Appearances
- Venue
- by CVP from the Central London Tribunal
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Kun Qin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Kun Qin worked for Servizon Limited as a Senior Accountant from 17 April 2023 to 16 June 2023. Her contract provided for gross annual pay of £50,000, and the tribunal calculated that she was entitled to gross pay of £8,653.85 for the working days in that period, plus £832.69 in accrued holiday pay, making total gross pay due of £9,486.54.
The tribunal found that the claimant actually received £7,067.37, paid in three instalments. It also found that the respondent had not accounted to HMRC for income tax and employee national insurance deducted from the claimant’s pay. On that basis, the tribunal held that the shortfall in payments was not a lawful or excepted deduction under sections 13 and 14 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and that £2,419.17 was an unauthorised deduction from wages.
Separately, the tribunal found that the respondent failed to give the claimant written itemised pay statements for the employment period, contrary to section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It made a declaration to that effect, but under section 26 of the Act it awarded no further sum for that failure because of the monetary award already made in respect of the wages complaint.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the shortfall between gross pay due and the amounts actually paid was an unauthorised deduction from wages. It awarded £2,419.17 gross, being the difference between £9,486.54 due and £7,067.37 received. | Upheld | — | £2,419 |
| Other | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to provide written itemised pay statements required by section 8 ERA 1996. It made no additional monetary award under section 26 ERA 1996 because of the award on the wages claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,419
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.8 ERA 1996
- s.11 ERA 1996
- s.12 ERA 1996
- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.14 ERA 1996
- s.23 ERA 1996
- s.24 ERA 1996
- s.26 ERA 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.