Case 6002431/2025 · Employment Tribunal
P C Ching v Marriotts Legal Services Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002431/2025
- Decision date
- 23 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
P C Ching
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Watford Employment Tribunal on 23 January 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response in time, and Employment Judge Tynan determined the claim, or part of it, under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £8,542.50 gross. It further found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, with damages of £15,450 gross, and that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement, with £772.50 gross awarded.
The judgment noted that any failure by the respondent to account to HMRC for national insurance contributions is a matter for HMRC, and any failure to pay employer pension contributions is a matter for the Pensions Regulator. Any further claims by the claimant will be considered and determined at a hearing in due course.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages; £8,542.50 gross awarded. Determined under rule 22 after respondent failed to file a valid response in time. | Upheld | — | £8,543 |
| Breach of contract | Claimant dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages of £15,450 gross awarded. | Upheld | — | £15,450 |
| Holiday pay | Respondent failed to pay claimant's holiday entitlement; £772.50 gross awarded. Treated as a working time / holiday pay claim under the Working Time Regulations. | Upheld | — | £773 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £24,766
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.