Case 6002687/2025 · Employment Tribunal
S Ali v Prezzo Trading Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002687/2025
- Decision date
- 13 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Klimov JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
S Ali
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with the claimant's application dated 17 June 2025 for reconsideration of the judgment sent to the parties on 13 June 2025. Employment Judge Klimov refused the application on 18 June 2025.
The reasons given were that there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. The judge recorded that the claimant's submissions opposing the strike out proposal had been duly considered and were not sufficient.
The tribunal found that those submissions did not disclose any valid grounds why the claimant's pregnancy and maternity discrimination complaint and unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment on 18 June 2025 refused reconsideration of the earlier judgment sent on 13 June 2025. The reasons state that the claimant's submissions opposing strike out had already been considered and were not sufficient to show valid grounds why the pregnancy and maternity discrimination complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment on 18 June 2025 refused reconsideration of the earlier judgment sent on 13 June 2025. The reasons state that the claimant's submissions opposing strike out had already been considered and were not sufficient to show valid grounds why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out. | 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.