Case 1805157/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs I Mir v Damian Petrucci t/a Regent Orthodontics Heard by: CVP — 2021
- Case reference
- 1805157/2021
- Decision date
- 22 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shulman Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs I Mir
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a short judgment recorded by Employment Judge Shulman on 22 December 2021 following a hearing on 8 December 2021 by CVP. The claimant was represented by Ms J Callan and the respondent by Mr H Menon. No lay members are listed, indicating a judge-alone hearing.
The judgment states that the complaints of unfair dismissal, discrimination on grounds of sex, discrimination on grounds of religion or belief, no holiday pay, unauthorised deduction of wages, and victimisation were dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. The judgment does not set out any substantive findings on the merits of those claims.
The written record also says that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. No monetary award is recorded, and no remedy was made because the claims were withdrawn.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the complaint was 'dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant'. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint was 'dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant'. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint was 'dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant'. | Withdrawn | Religion or belief | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment refers to 'no holiday pay' and says the complaint was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to 'unauthorised deduction of wages' and says the complaint was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment states that the complaint was 'dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant'. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.