Case 6008996/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Kryger v Pladis (UK) Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6008996/2024
- Decision date
- 11 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T Brown Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Kryger
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge T Brown on 21 May 2025 at Reading by Cloud Video Platform. The respondent, Pladis (UK) Limited, applied to strike out Ms M Kryger's complaint of indirect discrimination in relation to race, arguing that the claimant had no reasonable prospect of showing that the tribunal had jurisdiction to consider the complaint because of the applicable statutory time limit.
The tribunal refused the strike-out application. No substantive finding on liability was made, and the judgment does not record any remedy because the race discrimination complaint was not finally determined at this stage. Reasons were given orally on 21 May 2025, and the written record notes that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written decision being sent on 11 June 2025.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | At a preliminary hearing, the respondent applied to strike out the claimant's complaint of indirect discrimination in relation to race on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect of showing the tribunal had jurisdiction, having regard to the applicable statutory time limit. The application was refused; the merits of the complaint were not determined in this judgment. | Other | Race | — |
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.