Case 4101129/2022 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4101129/2022 Mr V Kaphle v Chia Shia Retail Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 4101129/2022
- Decision date
- 30 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Hoey Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4101129/2022 Mr V Kaphle
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response had been presented, so the Employment Judge issued a Rule 21 judgment on the available material. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,755.12.
The tribunal also awarded damages in respect of notice pay in the sum of £312.40. The judgment records that this was treated as a net sum, but it was calculated using gross pay because the tribunal considered it likely the claimant would have to pay tax on it as Post Employment Notice Pay.
In addition, the tribunal found that the respondent had failed to provide the claimant with a written statement of terms and conditions and ordered payment of the gross sum of £711.50. The total monetary award was therefore £2,779.02.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Damages in respect of notice pay. The judgment says this is a net sum, calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood that tax will be payable as Post Employment Notice Pay. | Upheld | — | £312 |
| Other | Award made because the respondent failed to provide the claimant with a written statement of terms and conditions; the extracted text does not specify a more exact statutory label. | Upheld | — | £712 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment; tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum for an unauthorised deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £1,755 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,779
- 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.