Case 2401486/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C H Wang v George Hotel, Hayfield Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2401486/2024
- Decision date
- 27 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barker Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C H Wang
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe 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. On that basis, the tribunal dealt with the claim without a hearing and the listed hearing on 17 October 2024 was cancelled.
The tribunal upheld the claim for unauthorised deduction from wages. It found that the claimant had not been paid wages for 29 January 2024 to 4 February 2024, comprising 38 hours at £13.00 per hour, and ordered the respondent to pay £494.00 gross.
The tribunal also upheld the claim for unpaid annual leave. It found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's accrued untaken annual leave entitlement of 76.9 hours and ordered payment of £999.70 gross, calculated at the same hourly rate. The tribunal stated that the claimant would be responsible for any tax liabilities arising if the gross award was received without tax deducted at source. The total gross sum ordered was £1,493.70.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £494.00 for unpaid wages from 29/1/24 to 4/2/24, calculated as 38 hours at £13.00 per hour. | Upheld | — | £494 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay accrued untaken annual leave entitlement of 76.9 hours and ordered payment of £999.70, calculated at the claimant's gross hourly rate of £13.00. | Upheld | — | £1,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,494
- 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.