Case 2401835/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms B Duffy v Curis Healthcare Limited and 2 others — 2021
- Case reference
- 2401835/2020
- Decision date
- 22 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten Date
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Ms B Duffy
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with the case under Rule 21 and found that the first respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. It ordered Curis Healthcare Limited to pay the claimant the gross sum of £3,550.00.
The claims against the second and third respondents, One Health Medical Group Limited and One Health Medical Cosmetic Limited, were dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. The written judgment was accompanied by an interest notice under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, but no separate interest figure was awarded in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The first respondent was found to have made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and was ordered to pay the gross sum of £3,550.00. | Upheld | — | £3,550 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claims against the second and third respondents were dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,550
- across all upheld claims
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.