Case 2601685/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Williams v Ashby Castle Day Nursery And Preparatory School and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2601685/2023
- Decision date
- 21 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss C Williams
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 default judgment issued on 21 November 2023. The claim was issued on 27 July 2023, and the judgment records that the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. On that basis, the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The judgment states that the claim succeeds, but it does not set out any merits findings or separate conclusions on the individual pleaded causes of action. It therefore records success at default stage rather than a reasoned decision on disputed evidence.
The judgment does not determine remedy. It says that the claimant's remedy will be decided at a later Remedy Hearing, and the hearing listed for 5 December 2023 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment is a Rule 21 default judgment and states only that the claim succeeds; it does not break the result down by pleaded cause of action. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment is a Rule 21 default judgment and states only that the claim succeeds; it does not break the result down by pleaded cause of action. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment is a Rule 21 default judgment and states only that the claim succeeds; it does not break the result down by pleaded cause of action. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 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.