Case 6019108/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Chee Yin FUNG v Hartwood Technology Consulting Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6019108/2024
- Decision date
- 17 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Da Costa
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Chee Yin FUNG
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the CVP final hearing on 17 March 2025, and the respondent also did not attend. The clerk emailed and telephoned the claimant to ask about the non-attendance and whether he could attend later that day, but no response was received.
The Tribunal had no papers or information apart from the claimant's ET1 claim form. It found there was insufficient evidence to prove the unpaid wages and redundancy pay claims in the claimant's absence, including no corroborating evidence about remuneration, non-payment of wages, or the reason for termination. The claim was dismissed under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant claimed unpaid wages for six months, including June to October 2024. The claim was dismissed under rule 47 because no party attended and there was insufficient evidence to prove the claim in the claimant's absence. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The claimant claimed redundancy pay for employment ending on 27 October 2024. The Tribunal found it had insufficient evidence, including as to the reason for termination and whether any termination was wholly or mainly attributable to cessation of trading for section 139(1) ERA 1996 purposes. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- balance of probabilities
- rule 47 (non-attendance) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- section 139(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.