Case 3204007/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Tan v Remote Technology Services Ltd and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 3204007/2022
- Decision date
- 13 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jones Representation
- Venue
- East London
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms J Tan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing on 12 December 2022 at East London before Employment Judge Jones, the tribunal dealt with three claims brought by Ms J Tan against Remote Technology Services Ltd and Iarla O’Carroll. The judgment records that the unlawful deduction of wages complaint was struck out because the tribunal found it to be illegal and vexatious.
The claimant's discrimination complaints on the grounds of race and sex were also struck out against both Respondents. The tribunal stated that each of those claims had no reasonable prospects of success. No substantive liability findings were made on the merits because all pleaded claims were disposed of at the strike-out stage.
The tribunal further ordered Ms Tan to pay the Respondents' costs incurred in the hearing in the sum of £1,800. The judgment does not allocate that costs order to any particular claim or identify any other monetary remedy.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Struck out for illegality and because it was vexatious. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Struck out against both Respondents because it had no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Struck out against both Respondents because it had no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | Sex | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,800
- 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.