Case 1303565/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Wells v Willow Rose Care Home Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1303565/2022
- Decision date
- 17 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Connolly
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Wells
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs C Wells brought claims against Willow Rose Care Home Limited for unfair dismissal and race discrimination. The tribunal, sitting alone before Employment Judge Connolly at West Midlands by CVP on 14 July 2023, recorded that the respondent's name was changed by consent to Willow Rose Care Home Limited.
The unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed because the claimant had not been employed for two years or more. The tribunal therefore held that she was not entitled to bring that complaint.
The race discrimination claim was also dismissed. The tribunal found that it had not been presented within the statutory three-month period from the last act complained of, and it decided that it was not just and equitable to allow the claim to proceed given the date on which it was presented.
The judgment states that, for the avoidance of doubt, all claims in Case No. 1303565/2022 were dismissed. No monetary remedy was awarded or recorded in the written decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was not employed for 2 years or more, so she was not entitled to bring a complaint of unfair dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The race discrimination complaint was presented outside the statutory three-month period from the last act complained of, and the tribunal decided it was not just and equitable to allow it to proceed. | Dismissed | 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.