Case 1401252/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Samira Pettitt v Luna 3-6-5 Healthcare Services Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1401252/2022
- Decision date
- 21 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr. M.
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Samira Pettitt
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Bristol Employment Tribunal via VHS on 3 February 2023 before Employment Judge Mr. M. Salter. The claimant, Samira Pettitt, did not attend and was not represented. The respondent, Luna 3-6-5 Healthcare Services Limited, was represented by Ms. D. Luna, director.
The written judgment states that the claimant's claims were dismissed. It does not set out separate findings for each pleaded head of claim or any monetary award. The record also notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the written record.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The written record states only that the claimant's claims were dismissed; it does not give claim-specific reasons or a separate remedy split. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The written record states only that the claimant's claims were dismissed; it does not give claim-specific reasons or a separate remedy split. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Redundancy | The written record states only that the claimant's claims were dismissed; it does not give claim-specific reasons or a separate remedy split. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The written record states only that the claimant's claims were dismissed; it does not give claim-specific reasons or a separate remedy split. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The written record states only that the claimant's claims were dismissed; it does not give claim-specific reasons or a separate remedy split. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The written record states only that the claimant's claims were dismissed; it does not give claim-specific reasons or a separate remedy split. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.