Case 2300544/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Franklyn McDonald Case Number 2300544/2022 v Bupa Care Services Limited Full merits hearing — 2024
- Case reference
- 2300544/2022
- Decision date
- 24 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Panel members
- Ms J Cook, Mr S Townsend
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Franklyn McDonald Case Number 2300544/2022
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the correct and sole respondent was Bupa Care Services Limited. Any claim insofar as it related to any other respondent, in particular British United Provident Association Limited, was dismissed.
On the merits, the tribunal dismissed the Claimant's allegation that he was subjected to detriment for making protected disclosures. It also dismissed the allegation that he was unfairly dismissed, whether automatically or otherwise.
The tribunal further dismissed the allegation that the Claimant was subjected to discrimination based on his religion or beliefs. The judgment states that these were all the heads of claim brought by the Claimant, and the claim was therefore dismissed entirely.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal described this as an allegation that the Claimant was subjected to detriment for making protected disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal recorded the allegation as unfair dismissal, whether automatic or not. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The tribunal referred to discrimination based on the Claimant's religion or beliefs. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
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.