Case 6017890/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Guwon Jung v Formax Credit (UK) Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6017890/2025
- Decision date
- 14 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Guwon Jung
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningJudgment was made under rule 22 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The claim was presented to the London Central Employment Tribunal on 14 May 2025 and the claimant's employment was terminated on 20 March 2025. The Employment Judge determined that a decision could properly be made on the papers.
The tribunal found that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages by failing to pay his February and March 2025 salary, totalling £8,225.81 gross. The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of his entitlement to 3 months' notice, and that the respondent must pay damages of £15,000 gross.
The award was adjusted by £489.80 gross to account for 2 days' holiday pay the claimant owed the respondent at the termination date, producing a total payable sum of £22,736.01. The claimant must account to HMRC for any tax or national insurance due. The hearing listed for 21 October 2025 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid February and March 2025 salary of £8,225.81 gross. | Upheld | — | £8,226 |
| Breach of contract | Damages for failure to give 3 months' contractual notice; £15,000 gross. Award adjusted by £489.80 for 2 days' holiday pay owed by claimant to respondent at termination. | Upheld | — | £15,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £22,736
- 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.