Case 2214037/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Yiching Wu v Bank of Taiwan, London Branch — 2024
- Case reference
- 2214037/2023
- Decision date
- 29 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anthony REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Yiching Wu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary judgment on time limits heard on 22 October 2024 before Employment Judge Anthony by CVP. The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. It also dismissed the wrongful dismissal/notice pay complaint on the same basis.
The indirect discrimination complaint under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 was also found to be out of time. The tribunal held that it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit, so that claim was dismissed.
The respondent conceded that the time limit was met for the section 15 Equality Act 2010 complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, for the breach of contract claim concerning non-payment of the 2022 bonus, and for the complaint about failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars or changes to those particulars. Those claims were allowed to proceed, but this judgment did not determine their merits or any remedy.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed because the complaint of wrongful dismissal/notice pay was not presented within the applicable time limit and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Indirect discrimination (s.19 Equality Act 2010) was not presented within the applicable time limit and the tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time. The protected characteristic is not identified in the extracted text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The respondent conceded the time limit was met for the complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of a disability, so the claim could proceed. No merits finding is made in this judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claim concerning failure to pay the 2022 bonus; the respondent conceded the time limit was met, so the claim could proceed. No merits finding is made in this judgment. | Other | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
- s.19 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
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.