Case 6021132/2025 · Employment Tribunal

Representing himself For the v Ms Y Montaz, consultant — 2026

Case reference: 6021132/2025
Decision date: 3 September 2026
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Morton Date

Indexed: 15 September 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Representing himself For the

Respondent

Ms Y Montaz, consultant

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Following the hearing on 28 August 2026, the tribunal upheld Mr E Chung's unfair dismissal claim against D&D Management Limited under section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996. His separate automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 104(1)(b) was not well founded and was dismissed.

The tribunal also dismissed as not well founded the claims for unlawful deduction from wages under sections 13 and 23 Employment Rights Act 1996, failure to give a statement of employment particulars under section 1 of that Act, failure to pay the National Minimum Wage under section 1 National Minimum Wage Act 1998, and breach of contract. Reasons were given orally at the hearing; the written judgment records the outcomes without setting out the factual findings or reasoning behind them.

Mr Chung made no application for reinstatement or re-engagement and withdrew his application for financial compensation under section 123 Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal declared that he had been unfairly dismissed, but dismissed his entitlement to remedy on withdrawal. No monetary award was recorded.

Claims and outcomes

6 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unlawful deduction from wages	Claim under sections 13 and 23 Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well founded.	Dismissed	—	—
Unfair dismissal	The separate automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 104(1)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well founded.	Dismissed	—	—
Other	Failure to give a statement of employment particulars under section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996. The claim was not well founded.	Dismissed	—	—
Other	Failure to pay the National Minimum Wage under section 1 National Minimum Wage Act 1998. Listed separately from unlawful deduction from wages and classified as other because the taxonomy has no specific National Minimum Wage category. The claim was not well founded.	Dismissed	—	—
Breach of contract	The claim was not well founded.	Dismissed	—	—
Unfair dismissal	The claim under section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded. The claimant did not apply for reinstatement or re-engagement and withdrew his application for financial compensation under section 123. His entitlement to remedy was dismissed on withdrawal.

Legal tests applied

6 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 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.