Case 3302818/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Voong v Progress Staffing & Recruitment Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 3302818/2020
- Decision date
- 6 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Voong
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which Employment Judge Postle determined the case on the papers. The tribunal found that Progress Staffing & Recruitment Ltd had made an unauthorised deduction from Miss C Voong's wages and ordered payment of £3,487.51 gross/net.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and awarded damages of £1,666.67. In addition, it found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £153.92.
The judgment does not set out any further reasoning or separate remedy structure beyond the three monetary awards. The total of the sums ordered is £5,308.10.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross/net sum stated in the judgment. | Upheld | — | £3,488 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages in the stated sum. | Upheld | — | £1,667 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of the stated sum. | Upheld | — | £154 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,308
- 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.