Case 6020138/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Kae Tran v Treat Yard Limited (formerly known as THC South West Limited) — 2025
- Case reference
- 6020138/2024
- Decision date
- 20 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rao Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Kae Tran
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent was notified of the final hearing, had filed a response, but did not attend or send representation. The tribunal therefore proceeded in its absence under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. It first found that the complaint was presented within time under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, because the last deduction in the wage series was on 31 August 2024 and the claim was filed on 28 November 2024.
The tribunal upheld the unlawful deduction from wages complaint under section 23 ERA 1996. It found unauthorised deductions of £5,826.40 from net wages between 1 April 2024 and 31 August 2024. The respondent had repaid £4,819.56, leaving £1,006.84 outstanding, and the tribunal also awarded £300 under section 24(2) ERA 1996 for financial loss attributable to the deduction, making £1,306.84 in total on that complaint.
The holiday pay complaint under regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 was also well-founded. The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction of £349.60 for holidays accrued but untaken at termination, but recorded that the respondent had repaid that amount in full, so no further payment was ordered.
Two breach of contract claims under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 also succeeded. The first was for one week’s notice pay, because the claimant was entitled to notice and was dismissed without lawful notice; the tribunal ordered £468. The second was for missing pension contributions of £30.47 for May 2024 and £64.56 for June 2024; the tribunal ordered £95.03. The judgment sum was £1,869.87.
The tribunal also recorded the respondent’s ET3 statement that it had an arrangement with The Pensions Regulator to repay the missing pension sums, and directed the claimant to provide a copy of the judgment to the regulator if needed in relation to any enquiry or correspondence about those contributions.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction of £5,826.40 from net wages for 1 April 2024 to 31 August 2024. The respondent had repaid £4,819.56, leaving £1,006.84 outstanding, and the tribunal also awarded £300 for financial loss under section 24(2) ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £1,307 |
| Holiday pay | The claim under regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 concerned £349.60 for holidays accrued but not taken on termination. The respondent repaid the sum in full, so no further payment was ordered. | Upheld | — | £0 |
| Breach of contract | The claim for notice pay under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 succeeded. The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to one week’s notice and was dismissed without lawful notice. | Upheld | — | £468 |
| Breach of contract | The claim concerned missing pension contributions for May 2024 (£30.47) and June 2024 (£64.56), which the tribunal found were due and unpaid. | Upheld | — | £95 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,870
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,307
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 47 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 24(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 30 Working Time Regulations 1998
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
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.