Case 2301978/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Po Ming Yu v Vita Collective Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2301978/2023
- Decision date
- 31 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Po Ming Yu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 5 May 2023. The respondent did not present any valid response in time, and Judge M Aspinall determined the matter on the papers under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The tribunal therefore made findings on the claimant's claim without an attended merits hearing.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages properly due to the claimant. It identified deductions of £3,000 for January 2023, £3,000 for February 2023, and £1,282.19 for March 2023 (13 days), and ordered payment of £7,289.19 gross in respect of unlawfully deducted wages.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in relation to notice pay due, and awarded £690.41 gross for that breach. Separately, it found that the respondent had failed to pay properly accrued and owed holiday entitlement, and awarded £410.96 gross.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a total of £8,383.56 to the claimant. It stated that the claimant would be responsible and accountable for any sums owed to HMRC in respect of tax, national insurance, or other statutory deductions.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages for January 2023, February 2023, and 13 days in March 2023. | Upheld | — | £7,289 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice pay due. | Upheld | — | £690 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay properly accrued and owed holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £411 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,384
- 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.