Case 2305187/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Wen Ju Sun v Ark Schools — 2022
- Case reference
- 2305187/2021
- Decision date
- 30 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Curtis Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Wen Ju Sun
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Wen Ju Sun worked for Ark Schools as a Mandarin teacher from 1 September 2010 until her dismissal on 31 July 2021. The dispute arose from a voluntary redundancy arrangement and the wording of clause 4.8 of her contract, which set out term-based notice periods and then referred to additional notice for teachers with more than eight years' continuous service by reference to employment protection legislation.
On the notice-pay issue, the tribunal rejected the Claimant's case that clause 4.8 entitled her to an additional 11 weeks' notice pay after the contractual table notice period. It held that the clause provided for the greater of the two alternative notice periods, not a cumulative entitlement, because that reading accorded with the wording of the clause and with business common sense. The tribunal also found that, in any event, the Claimant had accepted the notice terms in the voluntary redundancy agreement after the Respondent's position had been made clear to her in correspondence.
On pension contributions, the tribunal found that the 18 June 2021 email from Miss Howard-Cofield formed part of the agreement between the parties and was a clear promise that employer pension contributions would be paid on the pay in lieu of notice. It rejected the Respondent's submission that the notice sum already included pension contributions. The tribunal found that no pension contributions were paid on the pay in lieu of notice for the period 1 August 2021 to 31 December 2021 inclusive, and that the employer contribution was £1,102.09 per month.
The tribunal awarded damages of £5,510.45 for the breach relating to pension contributions, calculated as five months at £1,102.09. The notice-pay claim failed and no separate award was made on that issue. The judgment recorded that the Claimant's references to National Insurance on notice pay were no longer pursued, and the tribunal did not determine the separate factual complaint about early retirement because no legal claim was advanced in respect of it.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal held that clause 4.8 entitled the Claimant to the greater of the contractual notice in the table and the statutory notice under s.86 ERA 1996, not an additional 11 weeks on top of the table notice. It also held that, even if that construction were wrong, the Claimant had agreed the notice position in the voluntary redundancy agreement and was bound by it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that the 18 June 2021 email from Miss Howard-Cofield promised that employer pension contributions would be paid on the Claimant's pay in lieu of notice up to the end of December 2021. It rejected the Respondent's case that the notice sum already included pension contributions, found that no pension contributions were paid on the notice pay from 1 August to 31 December 2021, and awarded damages at £1,102.09 per month for five months. | Upheld | — | £5,510 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,510
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.3 Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 article 3
- s.86 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonable person / business common sense
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.