Case 6003436/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Z Zhou v WIND Financial Information UK Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6003436/2024
- Decision date
- 21 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Loraine REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Z Zhou
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Miss Z Zhou’s complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was well-founded. It found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions in the periods August to October 2022 and February 2023 to March 2024, made up of underpayments of basic salary together with associated employer pension contributions at 7%.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £19,183.57, described as the gross sum deducted. It noted that the claimant is responsible for any tax or National Insurance as appropriate.
The separate written itemised pay statements claim was dismissed because the claimant withdrew it.
The tribunal also recorded that the respondent did not unreasonably fail to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015, so no uplift was made under s.207A of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages for August to October 2022 and February 2023 to March 2024, comprising underpayments of basic salary and associated employer pension contributions at 7%. | Upheld | — | £19,184 |
| Other | Written itemised pay statements claim dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £19,184
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015
- s.207A Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.