Case 4106559/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms TS Leung v MB Cafes Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 4106559/2024
- Decision date
- 13 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sangster
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms TS Leung
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Sangster sat alone by CVP in Edinburgh on 13 November 2024. Ms TS Leung appeared in person and MB Cafes Limited was represented by Mr C Free, a director. The Tribunal upheld the claimant's complaint under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and ordered the respondent to pay £395.89 gross, being the sum found to have been unlawfully deducted from wages contrary to section 13 ERA 1996.
The judgment states that the claimant's remaining complaints did not succeed and were dismissed. It also records that the respondent may deduct any income tax and employee national insurance contributions required by law from the award before payment, provided it remits those sums to HMRC and gives the claimant written evidence of the deductions and remittance. Oral reasons were given at the hearing, and written reasons will not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded. The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £395.89 gross, which it found had been unlawfully deducted from wages contrary to section 13 ERA 1996. The judgment also states that the claimant's remaining complaints were dismissed, but it does not identify them on the face of the extracted text. | Upheld | — | £396 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £396
- 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.