Case 3311348/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Chan v Envirya Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3311348/2023
- Decision date
- 26 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Chan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Watford Employment Tribunals on 2 October 2023. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. On that basis, the tribunal found that Envirya Ltd had made unauthorised deductions from Mr K Chan’s wages.
The tribunal ordered Envirya Ltd to pay £497.46 gross in respect of the deductions. It also ordered a further £124.36, described as a 25% uplift on the above sum for unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS grievance code.
The complaints seeking interest and reference were dismissed as outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The application for a preparation time order was refused because appropriate grounds were not made out.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £497.46 gross plus £124.36, described as a 25% uplift for unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS grievance code. | Upheld | — | £622 |
| Other | Complaints seeking interest and reference were dismissed as outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £622
- 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.