Case 6022446/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Terrett v BUPA Occupational Health Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6022446/2024
- Decision date
- 2 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Russell Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Terrett
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that Ms N Terrett was not an employee of BUPA Occupational Health Limited at the relevant time. It therefore dismissed her complaints of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal/breach of contract because it did not have jurisdiction to determine them.
The Tribunal found that Ms Terrett was a worker of the Respondent at the relevant time. Her complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages relating to holiday pay was therefore permitted to proceed; the judgment did not determine that complaint's final outcome or record any remedy.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the Tribunal found that Ms Terrett was not an employee of the Respondent at the relevant time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment described this complaint as wrongful dismissal/breach of contract. It was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the Tribunal found that Ms Terrett was not an employee of the Respondent at the relevant time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint concerned unauthorised deductions from wages relating to holiday pay. The judgment recorded that it would proceed and did not determine its final outcome. | Other | — | — |
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.