Case 6032266/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Niculae v Oasis Dental Care Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6032266/2025
- Decision date
- 20 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Niculae
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented her claim on 1 September 2025, naming Oasis Dental Care Limited as the respondent. The Acas early conciliation certificate named Bupa Dental Care Beckenham Total Orthodontics, and the Legal Officer warned that the difference in names risked rejection unless a valid certificate was provided.
The Legal Officer rejected the claim on 8 October 2025 because the prospective respondent named on the early conciliation certificate was not the same as the respondent named on the claim form. The Tribunal found that the claimant had been informed she could request reconsideration, but did not apply within the original 14 day time limit.
The Tribunal considered the Legal Officer's decision afresh under Rule 7(2) and refused the claimant's application dated 20 December 2025. It found there was not enough information in the claim form to link the two entities in the way later explained by the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment concerns refusal of the claimant's application for reconsideration, more correctly consideration afresh by a Judge, of the Legal Officer's rejection of the claim. The substantive race discrimination claim was not adjudicated on its merits. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 7(2)
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.