Case 6014416/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss P Williams v Redditch FMA Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6014416/2024
- Decision date
- 4 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fitzgerald
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss P Williams
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss P Williams was employed by Redditch FMA Ltd from 1 October 2022 until 26 April 2024. The judgment records that her automatic unfair dismissal claim was lodged out of time. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for that claim to have been lodged in time, and it therefore struck out the automatic unfair dismissal claim so that it would not continue.
The tribunal also dealt with a pregnancy and maternity discrimination claim. Although that claim was also lodged out of time, the tribunal held that it was just and equitable to extend the time limit, so the claim was permitted to proceed. The parties were referred to the Case Management Order dated 4 July 2025. No merits findings or monetary award are recorded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant's automatic unfair dismissal claim was lodged out of time. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been lodged in time, so the claim was struck out and would not continue. | Struck out | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The pregnancy and maternity discrimination claim was lodged out of time, but the tribunal held it was just and equitable to extend the time limit so that the claim could proceed. The parties were referred to the Case Management Order dated 4 July 2025. | Other | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable to extend the time limit
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.