Case 3200663/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M S Caplan v Lulu Liu London Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3200663/2024
- Decision date
- 17 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Appearances
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M S Caplan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the claimant's complaints against Lulu Liu London Ltd at the East London Hearing Centre on 16 October 2024 before Regional Employment Judge Burgher. The claimant succeeded in her complaint for unpaid wages for November 2023 and in her claim for 14 days of accrued holiday covering the period from 8 June 2023 to 28 November 2023.
The claim for unpaid notice pay failed and was dismissed. The tribunal calculated the award using gross figures because the claimant would be liable for tax on the elements relating to pay.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant a total of £1,290.91, comprising £1,270.00 for unpaid wages and £880.88 for holiday pay, less £859.97 already paid by the respondent on 21 February 2024.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid wages for November 2023: 16.5 days at 7 hours per day at £11 per hour. | Upheld | — | £1,270 |
| Holiday pay | 14 days accrued holiday from 8 June 2023 to 28 November 2023 at 5.72 hours per day x £11 per hour. | Upheld | — | £881 |
| Breach of contract | Claim for unpaid notice pay failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,291
- 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.