Case 6019909/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Y Jiang v Bubblewrap Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6019909/2025
- Decision date
- 26 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Bann Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Y Jiang
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages, finding it was not well-founded.
The Tribunal found that the respondent did terminate the claimant's contract of employment and that the breach of contract complaint in relation to notice pay was well-founded. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £65.08 as damages for breach of contract, calculated using gross pay.
The unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed because the claimant had less than two years' continuous service and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider it. The claim for compensation for replacing a mobile phone stolen in the workplace was also dismissed as not well-founded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states the breach of contract complaint in relation to notice pay was well-founded and awarded damages calculated using gross pay. | Upheld | — | £65 |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states the claimant had less than two years' continuous service and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The claim for compensation for replacing a mobile phone stolen in the workplace was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £65
- across all upheld claims
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.