Case 3302759/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Epsilon Ten Ltd T/a Oxto Energy Storage — 2024
- Case reference
- 3302759/2023
- Decision date
- 16 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge K J Palmer, sitting alone at Bury St Edmunds on 15 April 2024, heard the claimant Mr Yi Liu in person against Epsilon Ten Ltd T/A Oxto Energy Storage. The respondent did not attend. The Tribunal upheld the claimant's claims for unlawful deduction of wages, pay in lieu of untaken holiday, and unlawfully deducted pension contributions, making declarations to that effect on the wages and pension claims.
The Tribunal awarded the claimant £5,000.04 for unlawful deduction of wages, £3,219.70 for untaken holiday pay, and £2,552.76 in respect of pension contributions, together with interest of £1,112.07. The respondent was ordered to pay a total of £11,884.57.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing; written reasons were not provided absent a request. The written record was sent to the parties on 17 May 2024.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal made a declaration and awarded £5,000.04 for unlawful deduction of wages. | Upheld | — | £5,000 |
| Holiday pay | Claim for pay in lieu of untaken holiday succeeded; £3,219.70 awarded. | Upheld | — | £3,220 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Pension contributions unlawfully deducted; declaration made and £2,552.76 awarded. Categorised under unlawful_deduction_wages as the tribunal framed it as an unlawful deduction; no separate enum exists for pension contributions. | Upheld | — | £2,553 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,885
- 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.