Case 1404618/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Centala v Gin and Olive Bars and Restaurants Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1404618/2020
- Decision date
- 25 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Goraj Representation
- Venue
- Exeter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Centala
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Exeter on 5 August 2021, Employment Judge Goraj dismissed the respondent's application to strike out the claimant's claims. The tribunal also dismissed the respondent's application for a deposit order, except that the claimant was required to pay a deposit of £500 as a condition of being allowed to proceed with her claims of sex discrimination, pregnancy/maternity discrimination and unfair dismissal because of pregnancy (only), as separately recorded.
The judgment does not determine liability on the underlying claims. It records that the matter remained listed for hearing on 31 January and 1, 2 and 3 February 2022.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The respondent's strike-out application was dismissed. The tribunal required a £500 deposit as a condition of proceeding with this claim, with the deposit details recorded separately; no substantive merits finding was made. | Other | Sex | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The respondent's strike-out application was dismissed. The tribunal required a £500 deposit as a condition of proceeding with this claim, with the deposit details recorded separately; no substantive merits finding was made. | Other | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary hearing only. The claimant's unfair dismissal claim because of pregnancy was included in the £500 deposit order, with the deposit details recorded separately; the tribunal did not decide the merits of the claim. | 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.