Case 6017256/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss N Owen v Betsi Cadwaladr University Local Health Board — 2026
- Case reference
- 6017256/2025
- Decision date
- 19 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore Representation
- Venue
- by video
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss N Owen
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe written record before the tribunal contains only a costs order: the claimant is ordered to pay the respondent costs in the sum of £10,562.92. The hearing took place by video on 19 March 2026 before Employment Judge S Moore, with the claimant in person and the respondent represented by Mr J Walters of counsel.
Reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and written reasons were not provided with this record. The document does not state how the underlying claims (listed on gov.uk as breach of contract, sex discrimination, unfair dismissal, and working time) were disposed of, nor does it set out the basis on which costs were awarded.
Because the substantive outcomes and the rationale for the costs award are not contained in the available text, no further findings can be extracted without speculation.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | This written record contains only a costs order against the claimant (£10,562.92 payable to the respondent). The underlying claims (per gov.uk listing: breach of contract, sex discrimination, unfair dismissal, working time) and their substantive outcomes are not stated in this document; written reasons were given orally and were not provided in writing. Outcome and claim_type cannot be reliably determined from the available text. | Other | — | £10,563 |
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.