Case 6001417/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Yan Yin Cheung v Brood Roastery Ltd (in voluntary liquidation) — 2025
- Case reference
- 6001417/2025
- Decision date
- 2 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Khan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Yan Yin Cheung
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Khan, sitting alone at London Central by video on 30 April 2025, heard the Claimant in person; the Respondent (in voluntary liquidation) did not attend. The Tribunal found that the Respondent had breached the Claimant's right to annual leave under the Working Time Regulations 1998 by failing to confirm her right to paid annual leave and by failing to enable her to take any annual leave throughout her employment.
On that basis the Claimant was entitled, on termination, to a payment in lieu of the statutory annual leave she had accrued. Her claim for £3,483.21 (gross), less £854.10 (gross) already received from the Redundancy Payment Office, was upheld.
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant the net of the gross sum of £2,629.11, having accounted to HMRC for any tax and national insurance due.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | Claim under the Working Time Regulations 1998 for payment in lieu of accrued statutory annual leave on termination. Gross entitlement of £3,483.21 less £854.10 already received from the Redundancy Payment Office, leaving a net-of-gross balance of £2,629.11 (subject to PAYE/NIC by the Respondent). | Upheld | — | £2,629 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,629
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Working Time Regulations 1998
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.