Case 2418039/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K Cheng v Tops Restaurant Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2418039/2020
- Decision date
- 26 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Hodgson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs K Cheng
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge B Hodgson, sitting alone at Manchester by CVP, gave judgment on 20 April 2021 in the claimant's favour on all three monetary claims. The tribunal held that the wrongful dismissal claim was well-founded because the respondent failed to pay the claimant her statutory notice period, and awarded £204.00 gross subject to statutory deductions.
The tribunal also found that the claim for unlawful deduction of wages was well-founded and ordered the respondent to pay £227.69 gross subject to statutory deductions. A further claim for failure to pay holiday accrued was likewise found well-founded, with an award of £650.76 gross subject to statutory deductions.
The written record states that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. No further findings of fact or legal analysis are set out in the extracted judgment beyond the three awards and the interest notice attached to the decision.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claim well-founded for failure to pay the claimant's statutory notice period. | Upheld | — | £204 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claim well-founded and ordered payment of the gross sum stated in the judgment. | Upheld | — | £228 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claim well-founded for failure to pay holiday accrued. | Upheld | — | £651 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,082
- across all upheld claims
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.