Case 6011931/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Chih Ying Chen v Ms Wendy Nehmer — 2025
- Case reference
- 6011931/2025
- Decision date
- 21 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Richter REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Chih Ying Chen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the respondent accepted unlawful deductions from wages for November and December 2024, that payslips were not initially provided, and that the claimant had been dismissed without contractual notice pay. The claimant accepted that she had received payment for those items, and the tribunal found that the correct totals were paid on 22 May 2025.
The tribunal found the wage deduction and payslip complaints were brought within time. It extended time for the breach of contract complaint, accepting that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present it within the primary time limit given her language difficulties, lack of legal advice, the timing of the final payment, and the circumstances described in evidence.
The tribunal found the breach of contract claim well-founded in relation to notice pay and found a limited breach of the implied term of trust and confidence in relation to payment of wages. It did not award further past or future loss of earnings and stated that damages for psychiatric injury could not be awarded as breach of contract damages in the Employment Tribunal.
Claims and outcomes
4 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint was found well-founded for deductions in the period 1 November 2024 to 30 December 2024. The judgment states the amount due was subsequently paid, but does not state the figure. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay was found well-founded. The judgment states the amount due was subsequently paid, but does not state the figure. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The respondent failed to give written itemised pay statements as required by section 8 Employment Rights Act 1996 for the period 1 November 2024 to 30 December 2024, but these were subsequently provided. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal held that the claim said to be brought under section 37F of the Small Business Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 was not within its jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- reasonably practicable
- Malik and Mahmud v BCCI [1997] ICR 606
- Johnson v Unisys Ltd [2001] ICR 480 HL
- Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994
- section 8 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.