Case 3308158/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms G Luca v Sugarman Health & Wellbeing Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 3308158/2023
- Decision date
- 23 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dick
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mrs A Brosnan, Mr W Dykes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms G Luca
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal upheld three complaints of pregnancy/maternity discrimination. It found well-founded complaints that, after the claimant requested a change of responsibilities on 19 July 2022, she was told that her circumstances had changed and therefore it was her problem; that the respondent failed to take action on or investigate her grievance letter dated 10 July 2023; and that it failed to provide any outcome on that grievance.
The remaining pregnancy/maternity discrimination complaints were dismissed. The holiday pay complaint was dismissed because the tribunal found no failure to pay in accordance with regulation 14(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998, and the unauthorised deductions from wages complaint was also dismissed.
The tribunal stated that, when proceedings were begun, the respondent was not in breach of its duty to provide the claimant with a written statement of employment particulars. Remedy was not decided in this judgment and was listed for a further hearing on 20 March 2026.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Three complaints of pregnancy/maternity discrimination were found well-founded and succeeded: issues 2.1.1, 2.1.5 and 2.1.6. Remaining pregnancy/maternity discrimination complaints were dismissed. Remedy was deferred to a hearing on 20 March 2026. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal held that the respondent did not fail to pay the claimant in accordance with regulation 14(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal stated that when proceedings were begun the respondent was not in breach of its duty to provide the claimant with a written statement of employment particulars. Point 5 reflected an oral reconsideration under rule 68, with further argument to be heard at the next hearing if either party wished to pursue it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- regulation 14(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998
- rule 68
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.