Case 2303581/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Michelle Retter v Bupa Dental Care — 2022
- Case reference
- 2303581/2021
- Decision date
- 9 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Smith
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Michelle Retter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at London South on 9 December 2022 before Employment Judge B Smith sitting alone. The claimant, Michelle Retter, did not attend. The respondent, Bupa Dental Care, was represented by James Boyd of counsel.
The judgment is a short strike-out decision. The respondent's application to strike out the claimant's claim under Rule 37(1)(c) was allowed, and the claim was struck out. No substantive liability findings or remedy award are recorded in the written judgment.
The written record notes that reasons for the decision were given orally at the hearing. It also states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested by a party within 14 days of the sending of the written record of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The PDF judgment itself records only that the respondent's application to strike out the claimant's claim under Rule 37(1)(c) was allowed. The underlying case listing on GOV.UK identifies the case category as unlawful deduction from wages. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(1)(c)
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.