Case 8000950/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Yu-Chieh Cheng v Taipei Representative Office in the UK, Edinburgh Office — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000950/2024
- Decision date
- 7 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Strain
- Venue
- Person in Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Yu-Chieh Cheng
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Yu-Chieh Cheng was employed by the Respondent as an Administrative Assistant from 1 March 2012, working primarily in the Edinburgh Office. The tribunal found that the Respondent paid an annual bonus in January based on the preceding year's appraisal, that no bonus was paid in January 2024, and that the claimant first learned on 7 February 2024 that her appraisal had been completed at the end of December 2023 and what mark she had received. The tribunal also found that she notified ACAS on 19 April 2024 and presented her ET1 on 28 June 2024.
For both the whistleblowing and victimisation complaints, the tribunal held that the relevant act was the December 2023 appraisal. Taking 31 December 2023 as the latest possible date, the primary limitation period expired on 30 March 2024. The tribunal therefore found both claims were presented out of time. It also accepted that the claimant had previously encountered similar issues in 2021 and had acquired knowledge of time limits through ACAS, the CAB, and her own research.
On the whistleblowing claim under s47B ERA 1996, the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. The claimant's only explanation for the late presentation was her mistaken belief that time ran from 7 February 2024, when she learned about the appraisal and non-payment of the bonus. Because she knew the time limits and nothing prevented her from presenting in time, the tribunal dismissed the whistleblowing claim for lack of jurisdiction.
On the victimisation complaint under s27 EA 2010, the tribunal applied the just and equitable test and concluded that no extension of time was warranted. It found the claimant's mistaken belief about when time started was unreasonable in light of her knowledge of the applicable time limits, and it noted the delay, the lack of a satisfactory explanation, and prejudice to the Respondent if the claim proceeded. The tribunal also held that the contract of employment correctly designated the Respondent as Taipei Representative Office in the UK, Edinburgh Office.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The claimant brought a detriment claim under s47B ERA 1996 based on the same matter as her victimisation complaint. The tribunal found the alleged detriment was the December 2023 appraisal and that, assuming the latest possible date of 31 December 2023, the claim should have been presented by 30 March 2024. It held that it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time because the claimant knew about the time limit but mistakenly thought it ran from 7 February 2024. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | The protected act relied on was a complaint in October 2023 about sexual harassment and a failure to deal with it, with a similar complaint said also to have been made in 2021. The alleged detriment was the mark given in the December 2023 appraisal, which led to no bonus being paid. The tribunal held the claim was out of time and that it was not presented within such further period as the tribunal considered just and equitable. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- London Borough of Southwark v Afolabi
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
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.