Case 3315350/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Wong v Future Electronics Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3315350/2023
- Decision date
- 12 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis Representation
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Wong
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in Reading on 10 April 2025 before Employment Judge Anstis, the tribunal recorded that, except for a claim of constructive unfair dismissal, which continues, the claimant's claims are struck out. The written record is a short oral judgment and does not set out the tribunal's full reasons for that decision.
No monetary remedy is recorded in this judgment. The decision notice states that written reasons will not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal's procedure.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that the claimant's claims were struck out, except for a claim of constructive unfair dismissal which continues. The written record does not set out further reasons. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment records that the claimant's claims were struck out, except for a claim of constructive unfair dismissal which continues. The written record does not set out further reasons. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the claimant's claims were struck out, except for a claim of constructive unfair dismissal which continues. The written record does not set out further reasons. | Struck out | — | — |
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.