Case 2302833/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Lee v London 01 Shop Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2302833/2022
- Decision date
- 7 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Burge Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Lee
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 7 March 2023, Employment Judge L Burge dealt with Mr C Lee's claims against London 01 Shop Ltd. The tribunal recorded that the claim for unlawful deductions from wages in respect of unpaid wages was dismissed upon withdrawal, so that part of the case did not succeed on the merits.
The tribunal found that the Respondent had made an unlawful deduction from wages in respect of unpaid annual leave and ordered it to pay Mr Lee the gross sum of £141.44. The judgment does not give a separate breakdown of that amount beyond identifying it as the sum unlawfully deducted.
Mr Lee's claim for breach of contract for unpaid notice pay was found not well founded and was dismissed. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that this claim was 'dismissed upon withdrawal'. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unlawful deduction from wages in respect of unpaid annual leave and ordered payment of the gross sum of £141.44. | Upheld | — | £141 |
| Breach of contract | The claim for unpaid notice pay was found not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £141
- 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.