Case 2301221/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D Chan v Becave Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301221/2022
- Decision date
- 21 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms D Chan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 8 April 2022 and the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge therefore determined the claim, or part of it, under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On the papers, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered it to pay £3,296.16 gross. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £347.20 in damages.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £10.63. It also found that the respondent had failed to make the correct contributions in relation to the claimant's pension scheme and ordered payment of £70.13. The total award was £3,724.12.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages; award of £3,296.16 gross. | Upheld | — | £3,296 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages of £347.20 awarded. | Upheld | — | £347 |
| Holiday pay | Failure to pay holiday entitlement; £10.63 awarded. | Upheld | — | £11 |
| Other | Failure to make the correct contributions in relation to the claimant's pension scheme; £70.13 awarded. | Upheld | — | £70 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,724
- 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.