Case 2304700/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Q. Li v EE & HO Trading Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2304700/2021
- Decision date
- 22 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T.R. Smith
- Venue
- London South via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Q. Li
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard on 26 January 2022 before Employment Judge T.R. Smith, with the Claimant appearing in person and the Respondent absent. The Tribunal found that Mr Q. Li's complaint of unlawful deduction from pay was well-founded and declared accordingly.
The Tribunal ordered the Respondent, EE & HO Trading Limited, to pay Mr Li £1,240 forthwith in respect of the unlawful deduction. It also ordered a further payment of two weeks' pay, calculated at £1,088 with the statutory cap applied, pursuant to section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 because written particulars of employment had not been provided.
Written reasons were not provided because reasons were given orally at the hearing and no request for written reasons was made within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal held that the Claimant's complaint of unlawful deduction from pay was well-founded and ordered the Respondent to pay £1,240 forthwith. | Upheld | — | £1,240 |
| Other | The Tribunal further ordered two weeks' pay of £1,088 under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide written particulars of employment; the statutory cap was applied. | Upheld | — | £1,088 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,328
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 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.