Case 3201836/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Wing So v Tech Nordic Advocates and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 3201836/2023
- Decision date
- 2 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Elgot Appearances
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss K Wing So
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis judgment provides written reasons for a costs order made on 2 January 2025. The substantive claims had already been disposed of: the Claimant withdrew her unpaid wages claim at a Preliminary Hearing on 16 February 2024, and her remaining claims for notice pay, holiday pay and failure to provide written particulars of employment were the subject of a settlement agreement and were withdrawn on 12 June 2024 (and dismissed on withdrawal). Earlier complaints of age, race and sex discrimination against Ms Carlsson (and a former Respondent, Bloxhub) under associated claim number 3201817/23 had been withdrawn and dismissed on 22 January 2024.
On the Respondents' costs application dated 22 July 2024, Employment Judge Elgot found that the Claimant had failed to comply with Tribunal orders and had not responded meaningfully or promptly to the Respondents' strike out/deposit application, with the result that she had conducted the proceedings unreasonably. The Judge additionally found that her claims, particularly those against the Second Respondent for notice pay, holiday pay and failure to provide statutory written particulars, had been pursued without reasonable prospect of success. A costs warning letter sent on 9 December 2023 had been worded in reasonable and accurate terms and had gone unanswered.
In exercising discretion as to amount, the Judge had regard to the Claimant's ability to pay. The Claimant's evidence was found credible and truthful: she had relocated from London to Scotland, drew no income from a new start-up partnership, had previously been supported by her parents in Hong Kong but could no longer continue to ask for such support, had no significant earnings, savings or capital, a bank balance of just over £300, and declining health including mental health difficulties. The Judge declined to find that she had access to unlimited family funds. The Respondents' schedule of costs totalled £15,370 and was said to have since risen above £18,000; the costs payable were fixed at £500, to be paid within 28 days.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim of unpaid wages withdrawn by the Claimant at a Preliminary Hearing before Employment Judge Jones on 16 February 2024. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim was the subject of a settlement agreement; the Claimant withdrew all remaining claims on 12 June 2024 and the claims were dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay claim was the subject of a settlement agreement; withdrawn on 12 June 2024 and dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | Complaint that the Claimant had not received written particulars of employment; withdrawn on 12 June 2024 alongside the settled claims and dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Complaints of age discrimination against Ms Carlsson (and a former Respondent, Bloxhub) were previously withdrawn under associated claim number 3201817/23; withdrawal and dismissal took place on 22 January 2024. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | Complaints of race discrimination against Ms Carlsson (and Bloxhub) were withdrawn and dismissed on 22 January 2024 under associated claim number 3201817/23. | Withdrawn |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Part 13 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.