Case 1601462/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R John and Others (See attached Schedule) v Pontypridd Care Home Ltd (In Compulsory Liquidation) and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 1601462/2022
- Decision date
- 5 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moore DATE
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss R John and Others (See attached Schedule)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment relates only to the scheduled claims against Pontypridd Care Home Ltd, which was identified as being in compulsory liquidation. The tribunal recorded that the claims were struck out.
The reason given was that, by letter dated 3 January 2024, the tribunal gave the claimants an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claims should not be struck out because they had not been actively pursued. The tribunal found that the claimants failed to make written representations, failed to make sufficient representations, or failed to request a hearing. The claims were therefore struck out.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The gov.uk listing categorised the case as Breach of Contract and Redundancy, but the judgment itself does not describe the underlying causes of action beyond stating that the scheduled claims against Pontypridd Care Home Ltd are struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The gov.uk listing categorised the case as Breach of Contract and Redundancy, but the judgment itself does not describe the underlying causes of action beyond stating that the scheduled claims against Pontypridd Care Home Ltd are struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
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.