Case 6002049/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Oskar Phung Van v Muse Coffee Company Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002049/2024
- Decision date
- 15 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Elizabeth Gibson
- Venue
- By CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Oskar Phung Van
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a CVP hearing on 20 June 2025 before Employment Judge Elizabeth Gibson, with the claimant appearing in person and no appearance for the respondent, the tribunal made three monetary awards in favour of Mr Oskar Phung Van against Muse Coffee Company Ltd. It held that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract as to notice contrary to section 86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and awarded damages of £185.58.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement under regulation 13A of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and ordered payment of £1,057.30. The extracted text shows this figure as £1057.303, which appears to be an OCR or line-break artefact.
Finally, the tribunal found that the respondent had breached its duty to provide written particulars. It recorded that there were no exceptional circumstances making an award of an amount equal to two weeks' gross pay unjust or inequitable, and under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 it awarded four weeks' gross pay, quantified at £742.32. The total monetary award recorded by the judgment is £1,985.20.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, contrary to section 86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and ordered damages of £185.58. | Upheld | — | £186 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement under regulation 13A of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and ordered payment of £1,057.30; the extracted text shows £1057.303, which appears to be an OCR/line-break artefact. | Upheld | — | £1,057 |
| Other | The tribunal found a breach of the duty to provide written particulars and, under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, held there were no exceptional circumstances making an award equal to two weeks' gross pay unjust or inequitable; it awarded four weeks' gross pay of £742.32. The text states Employment Rights Act 1997 for the written particulars duty, which appears to be a typo in the judgment text. | Upheld | — | £742 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,985
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 13A of the Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 38 of the Employment Act 2002
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.