Case 2404652/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Bentley v Rodericks Dental Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2404652/2022
- Decision date
- 8 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shergill
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Bentley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed Miss Bentley’s unfair dismissal claim. The hearing took place on 7 November 2022 before Employment Judge Shergill sitting alone at Manchester via CVP. The claimant did not attend and had not provided an email address or telephone number, and there was no explanation for her non-attendance.
The judgment records that the claimant’s name appeared as an additional claimant on an ET1 presented by another claimant, but no contact details or grounds of claim specific to Miss Bentley were included. The tribunal found that the claim had not been actively pursued and dismissed it for non-attendance under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The tribunal also noted that the claim may have been issued in error because it was linked to another claimant’s case that had settled through ACAS, and that Miss Bentley had a separate unfair dismissal claim against the same respondent in the Birmingham Employment Tribunal, listed for 9 and 10 January 2023.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for non-attendance under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The claimant did not attend, had not provided email or telephone details, and had not actively pursued the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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.