Case 2304811/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Alison Hoang v Basketdrop Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2304811/2021
- Decision date
- 8 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Alison Hoang
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 15 September 2021. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Wright decided that the claim, or part of it, could be determined under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages, but ordered £0 net for that part of the claim. It also found dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £1,085.00 damages, and found unpaid holiday entitlement and awarded £412.30.
The judgment states that the respondent must pay the claimant £1,153.00 in total, and cancelled the hearing listed for 23 June 2022.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states the respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages but must pay £0 net for this claim. | Upheld | — | £0 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awards damages of £1,085.00. | Upheld | — | £1,085 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states the respondent failed to pay holiday entitlement and awards £412.30. | Upheld | — | £412 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,153
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 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.