Case 6007483/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Elizabeth Wreford v Department of Work and Pensions — 2025
- Case reference
- 6007483/2024
- Decision date
- 21 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Elizabeth Wreford
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claims pursuant to Rule 28. It found that it had no jurisdiction to consider the claim because the claimant had failed to comply with the requirement in section 18A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 before presenting the claim in respect of all claims in the claim form.
Further or alternatively, the tribunal struck out the claims pursuant to Rule 38 on the same jurisdictional basis. The written judgment records that oral reasons were given at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within the stated time.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The judgment dismisses all claims pursuant to Rule 28 because the tribunal found it had no jurisdiction due to non-compliance with section 18A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 before presentation of the claim. It also records, further or alternatively, that the claims are struck out pursuant to Rule 38 on the same jurisdictional basis. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment dismisses all claims pursuant to Rule 28 because the tribunal found it had no jurisdiction due to non-compliance with section 18A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 before presentation of the claim. It also records, further or alternatively, that the claims are struck out pursuant to Rule 38 on the same jurisdictional basis. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 28
- Rule 38
- section 18A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996
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.