Case 6011650/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Karyn Weedon v United Living — 2025
- Case reference
- 6011650/2024
- Decision date
- 7 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Graham Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Karyn Weedon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Bury St Edmunds via CVP on 7 April 2025 before Employment Judge Graham. The claimant, Karyn Weedon, did not attend and provided no explanation for her non-attendance.
The tribunal stated that, because of that non-attendance, the claim was dismissed in full under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024. The written judgment does not set out any findings on the merits of the underlying claims.
No remedy was awarded and the judgment records only the procedural dismissal. The written note explains that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissed in full under Rule 47 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 after the claimant failed to attend the hearing with no explanation. The judgment does not contain any merits findings on this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed in full under Rule 47 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 after the claimant failed to attend the hearing with no explanation. The judgment does not contain any merits findings on this claim. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
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.