Case 2305178/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Ms MYS Chan v SALON +M Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 2305178/2025
- Decision date
- 27 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer Attendances
Parties
3 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer entered Rule 22 default judgment for two claimants against SALON +M Limited at London (South) by CVP. No ET3 response had been presented and the respondent was barred under Rule 22. Due to technical difficulties at the hearing, the matter was determined on the papers from the claimants' written remedy information of 26 January 2026. For the 1st claimant (Ms MYS Chan), the tribunal awarded £308.26 for unlawful deductions from wages in November and December 2025 and unpaid accrued holiday pay, £364 for one week's notice pay, and £728 (two weeks' wages) under s.38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars: total £1,400. For the 2nd claimant (Mr WSA Chan), the tribunal awarded £1,073.71 for unlawful deductions in October-December 2025 and accrued holiday pay, £435.89 for one week's notice pay, and £871.78 under s.38 Employment Act 2002: total £2,381.38. A post-hearing submission from the respondent was not in form ET3 and was not taken into account.
Claims and outcomes
3 claims adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Upheld | — | £1,382 |
| Breach of contract | Upheld | — | £800 |
| Other | Upheld | — | £1,600 |
Legal tests applied
3 referencesRemedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,781
Source document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.