Case 6001117/2023 · Employment Tribunal
1. Mrs J Minty 2. Mrs C Tackie-Yaoboi 2. Mrs Monica Wills 3. Mrs Charlotte Weymouth 4.Mrs Louise Smith. v The Roseway Partnership (dissolved) t/a Chudleigh Preschool and 3 others — 2024
- Case reference
- 6001117/2023
- Decision date
- 17 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Roper
Parties
5 namedClaimant
1. Mrs J Minty 2. Mrs C Tackie-Yaoboi 2. Mrs Monica Wills 3. Mrs Charlotte Weymouth 4.Mrs Louise Smith.
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out all responses. The reasons state that, by a letter dated 17 October 2024, the respondents were given an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing about why the responses should not be struck out.
The stated grounds were non-compliance with the Tribunal's order dated 9 September 2024 and that the responses had not been actively pursued. The respondents did not make representations, did not make sufficient representations, or did not request a hearing. The respondents remain entitled to notice of hearings and decisions, with participation only to the extent permitted by the Employment Judge.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the responses are struck out. It does not adjudicate the merits or remedy for this claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the responses are struck out. It does not adjudicate the merits or remedy for this claim. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment states that the responses are struck out. It does not adjudicate the merits or remedy for this claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the responses are struck out. It does not adjudicate the merits or remedy for this claim. | 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.