Case 1601350/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Bethany Williams v Marian Langford T/A Towyn Capel Residential Home — 2023
- Case reference
- 1601350/2022
- Decision date
- 13 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Bethany Williams
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms Bethany Williams, brought a claim for unfair dismissal against Marian Langford T/A Towyn Capel Residential Home. The case was heard at Cardiff by CVP on 12 April 2023 before Employment Judge H V Dieu sitting alone, with the claimant unrepresented and the respondent represented by a Tribunal Advocate.
The Tribunal did not determine the merits of the unfair dismissal claim. Instead, it struck the claim out under rule 37(1)(c), (d) and (e) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the claimant had not complied with Tribunal orders, had failed to actively pursue the claim, and a fair hearing was no longer possible. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written record notes that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with rule 62(3).
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under rule 37(1)(c), (d) and (e) for non-compliance with Tribunal orders, failing actively to pursue the claim, and because a fair hearing was no longer possible. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- r.37(1)(c) Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- r.37(1)(d) Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- r.37(1)(e) Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.