Case 6000589/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Jing Zhang v Asda Express Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6000589/2025
- Decision date
- 14 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Thompson
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Jing Zhang
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in public before Employment Judge Thompson (sitting alone) at Manchester Employment Tribunal on 14 November 2025, conducted by CVP. The judgment addressed three complaints brought by the Claimant against Asda Express Limited: disability discrimination, unfair dismissal, and enhanced redundancy pay.
The disability discrimination complaint was struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The unfair dismissal and enhanced redundancy pay complaints were each found to have little reasonable prospect of success under Rule 40, and the Claimant was ordered to pay a deposit of £200 in respect of each as a condition of continuing to advance those claims.
The judge recorded having had regard to the available information as to the Claimant's ability to comply with the order when determining the amounts of the deposits. No findings were made on the substantive merits of the surviving claims, and no monetary award was made to either party.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim found to have little reasonable prospect of success under Rule 40; Claimant ordered to pay a deposit of £200 as a condition of continuing the claim. Claim was not finally determined at this preliminary hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Redundancy | Complaint relates to enhanced redundancy pay. Found to have little reasonable prospect of success under Rule 40; Claimant ordered to pay a deposit of £200 as a condition of continuing the claim. Claim was not finally determined at this preliminary hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 40 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.