Case 2225551/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Alan Leung 2nd Claimant: Dr Yui Bong Alexander Wan v London Laboratory Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2225551/2024
- Decision date
- 12 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kara Lorrine
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Alan Leung 2nd Claimant: Dr Yui Bong Alexander Wan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt London Central on 31 July 2025, Employment Judge Kara Lorrine found the first claimant's complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages well-founded. The tribunal held that a deduction had been made between 1 and 5 September 2024, with gross deductions of £634.62, and that the first claimant also suffered £128.28 net financial loss attributable to that deduction. It also upheld the first claimant's breach of contract complaint for notice pay, finding that one month's notice pay was due at £2,750 gross.
The tribunal further found that the first claimant had taken 25 days' paid holiday but had accrued only 17 days by the date of dismissal. It held that the resulting holiday overpayment of £1,015.38 could be recouped by the respondent, so the damages for notice pay were reduced to £1,734.62. The final order for the first claimant was £2,497.51, although the component figures in the reasons sum to £2,497.52.
For the second claimant, the tribunal upheld the unauthorised deductions claim for underpayment of salary from 1 November 2023 to 5 September 2024. It found that the contractual salary was £72,000 gross, that payment had been made on a £65,000 gross basis, and that gross deductions totalled £12,357.66. After net payments of £6,632.26, the outstanding gross wages were £5,725.40.
The tribunal also upheld the second claimant's breach of contract claims for one month's notice pay and unpaid expenses. It found notice pay of £6,000 gross was due and unpaid. On expenses, the reasons state entitlement to £337.90 net, while the operative order awards £337.91; the judgment records a total award of £12,063.30 for the second claimant.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages in the period 1 to 5 September 2024, with gross deductions of £634.62 and net financial loss of £128.28 attributable to the deduction. The operative order for the first claimant states a total of £2,497.51, although the component figures in the reasons sum to £2,497.52. | Upheld | — | £763 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the first claimant was entitled to one month's notice pay of £2,750 gross, but it reduced damages after holding that 25 days' paid holiday had been taken when only 17 days had accrued, so the respondent could recoup the £1,015.38 overpayment. | Upheld | — | £1,735 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages for the period 1 November 2023 to 5 September 2024. It found the contractual salary was £72,000 gross, that the claimant was paid on a £65,000 basis, and that after later net payments of £6,632.26 the outstanding gross wages were £5,725.40. | Upheld | — | £5,725 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the second claimant was entitled to one month's notice pay of £6,000 gross and had not been paid any notice pay. | Upheld | — | £6,000 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the second claimant was entitled to reimbursement of expenses. The reasons state £337.90 net, but the operative order awards £337.91; the total award recorded in the judgment is £12,063.30. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,561
- 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.