Case 1806835/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Dickens v BUPA Care Services Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1806835/2020
- Decision date
- 8 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Buckley REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Dickens
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Dickens brought three heads of unlawful deductions against BUPA Care Services Limited. Sitting at Leeds Employment Tribunal by CVP on 8 February 2021, Employment Judge Buckley dismissed the unlawful deductions claim described as a failure to offer contracted hours.
The other two unlawful deductions heads were withdrawn by the claimant during the hearing. Those claims concerned an alleged deduction of half an hour per week and an alleged failure to pay statutory sick pay. The judgment records no financial award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unlawful deductions, described as failure to offer contracted hours. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unlawful deductions, described as deduction of half hour per week; dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unlawful deductions, described as failure to pay statutory sick pay; dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.