Claimant v Ms Wendy Nehmer
Outcome
Individual claims
The respondent accepted that there were unlawful deductions from the claimant's wages for work done in November and December 2024. The tribunal found the complaint well-founded. The deductions occurred on 5 December 2024 and 9 January 2025, forming a series. The amount due was subsequently paid on 22 May 2025.
The respondent accepted that the claimant was dismissed without being paid the two weeks' notice pay stipulated under her contract. The tribunal found the complaint well-founded. Time was extended on the basis it was not reasonably practicable to claim in time given language barriers, lack of legal advice, and waiting to see if payment would be made. The amount due was subsequently paid.
The respondent failed to provide written itemised pay statements as required by section 8 Employment Rights Act 1996 for the period November to December 2024. The complaint was well-founded. Pay statements were subsequently provided.
Facts
Ms Chen worked as a nanny for Ms Nehmer for approximately two weeks in November-December 2024. She was dismissed on 5 December 2024 without notice. The respondent made unauthorised deductions from her wages and failed to provide pay slips. Ms Chen did not speak English well and represented herself. She contacted ACAS on 11 February 2025 and filed her claim on 7 April 2025. By the hearing in October 2025, the respondent had paid all outstanding wages and notice pay and provided pay slips.
Decision
The tribunal found all claims well-founded: unlawful deduction of wages, failure to provide pay slips, and breach of contract (wrongful dismissal and breach of implied term of trust and confidence). The tribunal extended time for the breach of contract claim finding it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to claim in time given her language difficulties, lack of legal advice, emotional stress, and waiting to see if payment would be made. No financial award was made as all sums had been paid by the hearing.
Practical note
Language barriers, lack of access to legal advice, and reasonable delay in assessing whether payment will be made can justify extending time limits for breach of contract claims under the reasonably practicable test, even where the claimant is two weeks out of time.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6011931/2025
- Decision date
- 21 October 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Ms Wendy Nehmer
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- No
Employment details
- Role
- nanny
- Service
- 1 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No