Case 2302190/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms G v Bupa Care Homes (GL) Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2302190/2020
- Decision date
- 2 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dyal
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms G
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment concerns claims brought by Ms Natalie Green against BUPA Care Homes (BNH) Ltd across several case numbers, including 2302190/2020.
Employment Judge Michell recorded that all and any claims of age discrimination, sex discrimination, and discrimination founded on marital status or civil partnership under the Equality Act 2010 were dismissed pursuant to rule 52 following their withdrawal by the claimant. The judgment does not determine the merits of those claims and does not address remedy.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment states that all and any claims of age discrimination in the listed cases were dismissed pursuant to rule 52 upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that all and any claims of sex discrimination in the listed cases were dismissed pursuant to rule 52 upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Marriage or civil partnership discrimination | The judgment states that all and any claims of discrimination founded on marital status or civil partnership in the listed cases were dismissed pursuant to rule 52 upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Marriage / civil partnership | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 52 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunal (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.