Case 3202153/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Y. Liang v Casa Design Group Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3202153/2023
- Decision date
- 22 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Yale Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Y. Liang
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Yale, sitting at the East London Hearing Centre via CVP on 22 July 2024, considered claims by Ms Y. Liang against Casa Design Group Ltd. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unlawful deduction from the claimant's wages, although the amount due had subsequently been repaid. The tribunal also found that the respondent was in breach of contract for failing to pay expenses properly incurred, and ordered it to pay the claimant £54.51.
On the respondent's counter-claim, the tribunal found that the claimant was in breach of contract for claiming she had worked two days she had not in fact worked, and ordered her to pay the respondent £169.23. The judgment records a net order that the claimant pay the respondent a total of £114.72.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found the respondent made an unlawful deduction from the claimant's wages, although the amount due had been subsequently repaid. No separate monetary award was attached to this claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Respondent ordered to pay the claimant £54.51 as damages for breach of contract (failure to pay expenses properly incurred). | Upheld | — | £55 |
| Breach of contract | Respondent's counter-claim: claimant ordered to pay the respondent £169.23 for breach of contract for claiming two days she did not, in fact, work. | Upheld | — | £169 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £115
- 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.