Case 2300398/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Faella v Chuanglee Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2300398/2020
- Decision date
- 10 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Faella
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely at London South Employment Tribunal on 10 November 2021 before Employment Judge Ferguson. The judgment records that the Claimant, Mr D Faella, succeeded on an unauthorised deduction from wages claim against Chuanglee Ltd.
The tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay the Claimant the net sum of £520.15. It also increased that sum by £1,672.60 pursuant to s.38 of the Employment Act 2002, producing a total award of £2,192.75.
The written record states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note at the end of the judgment. No further factual findings or reasoning are set out in the written decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the Respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the net sum of £520.15. The judgment also records a separate increase of £1,672.60 pursuant to s.38 of the Employment Act 2002, taking the total award to £2,192.75. | Upheld | — | £520 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,193
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.38 Employment Act 2002
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.