Case 2305145/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Y M Liu v Yue Chang Dai — 2022
- Case reference
- 2305145/2021
- Decision date
- 4 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tsamados Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Y M Liu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the London South Employment Tribunals on 13 October 2021. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, so the Employment Judge made a determination under rule 21 on part of the claim. The unfair dismissal part was not determined in this judgment and was stated to proceed to a hearing as notified.
On the claims that were decided, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £60.00 net. It also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £720.00 net. The judgment states that the £720.00 figure was calculated using the statutory minimum entitlements in section 86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal ordered a total of £780.00, and stated that the claimant is responsible for any amounts owed to HMRC in respect of tax or national insurance contributions.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £60.00 net. | Upheld | — | £60 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £720.00 net, calculated by reference to the statutory minimum entitlements in section 86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £720 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £780
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.