Case 2201752/2020 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Ms C Musgrave — 2020
- Case reference
- 2201752/2020
- Decision date
- 22 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hodgson Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs C Foxen was employed by BUPA Occupational Health Ltd t/a BUPA Dental Care from July 2015 and became registered practice manager at BUPA Dental Care, Chelsea in February 2018. She was summarily dismissed on 16 December 2019 after authorising a £100 cash incentive for a receptionist, despite the respondent's cash handling policy limiting petty cash transactions to £50 unless authorised by both the area manager and general ledger manager. The tribunal accepted that she had no formal warning history and had generally been a well-regarded employee, but it found that she had not been authorised to create or approve the scheme and that the scheme details remained unclear.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
14 references- s.98(1)(a) ERA 1996
- s.98(1)(b) ERA 1996
- s.98(2)(b) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- British Home Stores v Burchell
- Sheffield Health and Social Care NHS Foundation Trust v Crabtree
- Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones
- Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt
- Abernethy v Mott Hay and Anderson
- Laws v London Chronicle
- Briscoe v Lubrizol Ltd
- Neary and another v Dean of Westminster
- s.207 TULR(C)A 1992
- ACAS Code of Practice 2015
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.