Case 3300918/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Wood v QIC Trims Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3300918/2025
- Decision date
- 16 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Wood
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment concerns the respondent's application for an extension of time to apply for reconsideration of an earlier decision. The earlier decision, made at a hearing on 16 October 2025, struck out the claimant's unfair dismissal claim but extended time for a pregnancy or maternity discrimination claim.
The tribunal refused to extend time for the reconsideration application. It noted that the reconsideration application was almost two months late, that the respondent had made no provision for dealing with written reasons after requesting them, and that no dates had been provided to explain the delay. The tribunal also stated that the respondent's underlying points appeared to concern matters that were or should have been argued at the earlier hearing, or possible errors of law that could be addressed by appeal.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that at a hearing on 16 October 2025 the claimant's unfair dismissal claim was struck out; this judgment refuses the respondent's application for an extension of time for reconsideration. | Struck out | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment records that at a hearing on 16 October 2025 it was just and equitable to extend time for a pregnancy or maternity discrimination claim; it does not determine the merits of that claim. | Other | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable to extend the time limit
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.