Case 2303135/2023 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Anjana Rai (2) Sudha Gurung Respondent - Bupa Care Homes (ANS) Limited Heard at London South Hearing Centre by CVP On 24-28 March 2025 and in chambers 2 April Before Employment Judge McLaren Members Mr S Corkerton Mr R Singh v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 2303135/2023
- Decision date
- 28 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McLaren Members
- Venue
- London South Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mr S Corkerton, Mr R Singh
Parties
1 namedClaimant
(1) Anjana Rai (2) Sudha Gurung Respondent - Bupa Care Homes (ANS) Limited Heard at London South Hearing Centre by CVP On 24-28 March 2025 and in chambers 2 April Before Employment Judge McLaren Members Mr S Corkerton Mr R Singh
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants were dismissed after an overnight inspection at a care home. The respondent concluded that staff had been asleep or not wakeful and that residents' night checks had not been completed or records had been falsified. The tribunal found that the decision-maker had a genuine belief in the misconduct, based on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation, and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
The tribunal found no less favourable treatment because of race. It found that the appropriate comparator, a white British employee found sleeping on the night shift, was treated in the same way, and that there was no evidence that senior staff accounts were prioritised because of prejudice against Nepalese staff.
For victimisation, the respondent accepted that the claimants had done a protected act and that referral to the Disclosure and Barring Service was a detriment. The tribunal found no link between the protected act and the referrals, noting that all staff found asleep on the relevant days were referred while only the claimants had brought tribunal claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of direct race discrimination was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment states that the complaint of victimisation was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the unfair dismissal complaint was not well-founded and that the claimants were fairly dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- BHS v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379
- Polkey
- Chagger
- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
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.