Case 2403964/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss HK Chan v Thirtieth Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2403964/2023
- Decision date
- 28 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes Case
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss HK Chan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a valid response within the time limit, so the Tribunal proceeded under Rule 21. It accepted the claimant's oral evidence, including WhatsApp messages she read out at the hearing, and found that the nursery had closed suddenly on 7 November 2023. On that evidence, and despite the absence of documentary material from the hearing bundle, the Tribunal found that the claimant had been short of pay for 23 hours on an earlier payslip and had also worked 31 hours up to 7 November 2023 for which she was not paid.
The Tribunal held that these facts amounted to an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered Thirtieth Limited to pay £2,420 gross for the unpaid wages. It also found that the claimant had not been paid her holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £293.70 gross for that element, with the claimant responsible for any tax and national insurance due. The written notice also recorded the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, article 12, but no quantified interest award was made in the judgment; the two gross awards together total £2,713.70.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £2,420 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £294 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,714
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, Rule 21
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, article 12
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.