Case 2601523/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Pywell v Mr J W Nunn trading as Primrose Lodge and 2 others — 2022
- Case reference
- 2601523/2021
- Decision date
- 1 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Camp Appearances
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Miss S Pywell
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Nottingham on 13 May 2022, Employment Judge Camp recorded that the only claim remaining before the tribunal was the claim against the first respondent, Mr J W Nunn trading as Primrose Lodge. The claims against respondents (2) and (3) were rejected at the outset of proceedings under rule 12, and any application to make them respondents was refused. The claimant appeared in person, assisted by Mrs E Molloy, and the respondents were represented by counsel.
The tribunal also recorded that, at all relevant times, the claimant had a disability within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, namely depression with anxiety. The claimant had applied for anonymisation; the judge refused that application after considering the written materials and submissions, including the provisions relied on under rule 49(3)(b) and section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. Reasons were given orally and the written record states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment records only that claims against respondents (2) and (3) were rejected at the outset of proceedings under rule 12, and that any application to make them respondents was refused. It does not identify the underlying substantive claim type or record a merits decision. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- rule 12 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2014
- rule 49(3)(b) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2014
- section 1 Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
- section 11(1)(b) Employment Tribunals Act 1996
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.