Case 2304073/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Wilson v The Nail and Beauty Zone Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2304073/2025
- Decision date
- 11 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leith Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Wilson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Leith sitting via CVP in Croydon on 11 December 2025. The judgment records two applications made by the Respondent, The Nail and Beauty Zone Limited, in relation to allegations predating 26 November 2024. The Respondent sought to strike out those allegations on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect of the Claimant establishing that they formed part of a continuing act with the in-time allegations, and that there was no reasonable prospect of showing it was just and equitable to extend time. The application failed and was dismissed.
The Respondent also applied for a deposit order in respect of the same pre-26 November 2024 allegations on the same grounds. That application also failed and was dismissed. The written record does not record any substantive liability findings on the underlying claims, and it does not record any remedy award. It is therefore a procedural judgment only, dealing with case management applications rather than the merits of the Claimant's allegations.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Respondent's application to strike out allegations predating 26 November 2024 failed; this was a preliminary application, not a substantive determination of liability. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Respondent's application for a deposit order in respect of allegations predating 26 November 2024 also failed; this was a preliminary application, not a substantive determination of liability. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- no reasonable prospect
- continuing act
- just and equitable
- deposit order
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.