Case 2217519/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Q Hoang v La Perla Beauty (UK) Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2217519/2023
- Decision date
- 22 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A.M.S. Green
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Q Hoang
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in London Central on 13 March 2024 before Employment Judge A.M.S. Green, the claimant, Miss Q Hoang, appeared in person and the respondent was not present or represented. The tribunal determined the claim on the papers and gave judgment orally at the hearing, with the written record sent to the parties on 22 March 2024.
The sole complaint was one of unauthorised deductions from wages. The tribunal held that the complaint was well-founded and found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in the period 1 September to 15 December 2023. The judgment does not set out separate reasons beyond that conclusion.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £12,541.65, described as the gross sum deducted. The judgment also records that the claimant is responsible for any tax or National Insurance due on that sum.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was well-founded and found an unauthorised deduction during the period 1 September to 15 December 2023. | Upheld | — | £12,542 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,542
- 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.