Case 2304558/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss X Li v LEM Education Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2304558/2023
- Decision date
- 11 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McLaren Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss X Li
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the London South Employment Tribunals on 24 August 2023. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined the claim under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages of £857.80 gross, that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice with damages of £750.24 gross, and that the respondent had failed to pay holiday entitlement of £208.40 gross. The respondent was ordered to pay a total of £1,816.24, with the claimant responsible for any sums owed to HMRC in respect of tax or national insurance.
The hearing listed for 8 February 2024 was cancelled. Judgment was given by Employment Judge McLaren dated 11 January 2024.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 determination; respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Award stated as gross. | Upheld | — | £858 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages awarded gross. | Upheld | — | £750 |
| Holiday pay | Failure to pay holiday entitlement; award stated as gross. Working time/holiday pay claim. | Upheld | — | £208 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,816
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.