Case 2411361/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss W Elizabeth v Recycle Proline Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2411361/2023
- Decision date
- 1 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspinall
- Venue
- Liverpool
- Panel members
- Mrs Plimley, Mr Alldritt
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss W Elizabeth
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Liverpool on 21 to 25 July 2025 before Employment Judge Aspinall, Mrs Plimley and Mr Alldritt, with the claimant represented by Mr Hayward and the respondent by Mr Katz. The tribunal gave its judgment orally at the hearing and the written record states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
The tribunal rejected the claimant's complaint of automatically unfair dismissal for the protected reason of pregnancy, finding it not well founded. It also rejected the claimant's complaints of maternity discrimination and direct sex discrimination, each of which was found not well founded. No monetary award is recorded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint was framed as automatically unfair dismissal for the protected reason of pregnancy and was held not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The claimant's complaints of maternity discrimination were held not well founded. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | The claimant's complaints of direct sex discrimination were held not well founded. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
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.