Case 1805740/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Deen v Oasis Dental Care Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1805740/2021
- Decision date
- 29 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Members
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- Ms J Lee, Mr K Lannaman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Deen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss K Deen brought claims against Oasis Dental Care Limited. The tribunal found her complaint of disability related harassment well founded and allowed it. The extracted judgment text does not set out further factual reasoning beyond that finding.
The tribunal awarded £5,500 as compensation for injury to feelings and an additional £473.85 by way of interest. The judgment does not split the award further between different heads of loss, and no basic award or separate compensatory award is identified in the extracted text.
The claimant's remaining complaints of disability discrimination and victimisation were dismissed. The extracted text does not itemise those remaining disability discrimination complaints separately, so the record reflects only that they failed as part of the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The tribunal found the claimant's complaint of disability related harassment was well founded. It awarded £5,500 for injury to feelings and £473.85 interest. | Upheld | Disability | £5,500 |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant's remaining complaints of disability discrimination failed. The extracted text does not itemise the individual disability discrimination sub-claims. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment states that the claimant's remaining complaint of victimisation failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,974
- across all upheld claims
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.