Case 6006809/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Ling Ling Shi v Longley Health Care Ltd and 3 others — 2025
- Case reference
- 6006809/2025
- Decision date
- 21 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Buckley Date
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Miss Ling Ling Shi
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Shi applied on 20 July 2025 for reconsideration of the case management orders made on 10 July 2025. Employment Judge Buckley refused the application, holding that there was no reasonable prospect of the original orders being varied or revoked.
The judge said the points advanced by the claimant were attempts to reargue the application or assertions that the earlier decision had been wrong. He stated that, in reaching the conclusions on 10 July, he had correctly applied the relevant law to the facts and had explained that decision in his written reasons.
The reasons also record that the tribunal took into account the claimant's extensive written and oral submissions and the documents she submitted. Having considered all the points raised, the judge found that none showed an arguable error of law or any other reason giving rise to a reasonable prospect that the orders would be varied or revoked.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Application dated 20 July 2025 for reconsideration of the case management orders made on 10 July 2025; the tribunal refused the application. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- no reasonable prospect of the original orders being varied or revoked
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.