Case 2501710/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Roth v Tracy B Bell Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2501710/2022
- Decision date
- 23 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Roth
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr J Roth's case against Tracy B Bell Limited was listed for a hearing at Newcastle Employment Tribunal on 23 February 2023, heard remotely by CVP. Neither party attended the hearing, and the judgment records that neither the claimant nor the respondent had complied with case management directions or responded to correspondence from the Tribunal.
Employment Judge Sweeney dismissed the proceedings pursuant to Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013 on the ground that they had not been actively pursued. The judgment records no findings on the merits of the underlying claims and no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Underlying claim type taken from the case listing categories; the judgment itself only records that the proceedings were dismissed pursuant to Rule 37 because they had not been actively pursued. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Underlying claim type taken from the case listing categories; the judgment itself only records that the proceedings were dismissed pursuant to Rule 37 because they had not been actively pursued. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Underlying claim type taken from the case listing categories; the judgment itself only records that the proceedings were dismissed pursuant to Rule 37 because they had not been actively pursued. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37 Employment Tribunal Rules 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.