Case 2602172/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Wongsalee Mr T Buromkhot v Siam Corner Ma Ma Thai Group Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2602172/2022
- Decision date
- 7 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clark
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Wongsalee Mr T Buromkhot
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not actively pursue its response. By email dated 7 December 2023 the tribunal gave the respondent an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on whether the response should be struck out, but it did not do so. The response was therefore struck out and judgment on liability was entered for the claimants.
The tribunal held that the claimants' claims for unauthorised deductions from wages succeeded. It also held that the claims for compensation for accrued but untaken annual leave outstanding at the date of termination succeeded. The claims for breach of contract likewise succeeded.
No remedy was determined in this judgment. The tribunal recorded that the remedy due to each claimant would be decided at a remedy hearing, and that the respondent would be entitled to notice of any hearings and decisions, with participation in the remedy hearing subject to the Employment Judge's permission if it applied promptly.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal entered judgment on liability after striking out the response because it had not been actively pursued. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claim for compensation for accrued but untaken annual leave outstanding at the date of termination succeeded; remedy was left to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Judgment on liability was entered after the response was struck out; remedy was deferred to a remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
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.