Case 3200422/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Phraiwan Pakkheepphan v Slurp Noodles Limited (in Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) — 2025
- Case reference
- 3200422/2025
- Decision date
- 29 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Crosfill Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Phraiwan Pakkheepphan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent (in Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) failed to present an ET3, did not attend, and submitted no evidence. The claimant gave evidence confirming the contents of his ET1 and schedule of loss were true.
The tribunal upheld three claims: (i) unlawful deduction of wages under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in the sum of £634.62 (unpaid wages 6-12 January 2025); (ii) accrued but untaken holiday pay of 17.5 days under Regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, totalling £2,221.17 at a daily rate of £126.92; and (iii) notice pay under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 equivalent to one week's pay of £634.62. The respondent was ordered to pay £3,490.41 in total.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from final instalment of wages for the period 6 to 12 January 2025. | Upheld | — | £635 |
| Holiday pay | Brought under Regulation 30 Working Time Regulations 1998. 17.5 days accrued holiday at daily rate of £126.92. | Upheld | — | £2,221 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994; one week's pay. | Upheld | — | £635 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,490
- 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.