Case 2201830/2023 · Employment Tribunal

in person For the v Respondent — 2023

Case reference: 2201830/2023
Decision date: 3 November 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge P Klimov Tribunal
Panel members: M Baber, J Carroll

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

in person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claim, brought by Ms Anahita Ansari against Prodent London Limited, was heard in public by video at London Central on 31 October, 1, 2 and 3 November 2023 before Employment Judge P Klimov with Tribunal Members M Baber and J Carroll. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel.

The judgment states in express terms that all of the claimant's complaints in the claim were not well-founded. The tribunal therefore found that the claim failed in its entirety and dismissed it. The written record does not set out separate findings on each pleaded complaint, but the overall result was dismissal of the full claim.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Age discrimination	The written judgment records that all complaints in the claim were not well-founded and the claim was dismissed; it does not separate findings by individual complaint.	Dismissed	Age	—
Breach of contract	The written judgment records that all complaints in the claim were not well-founded and the claim was dismissed; it does not separate findings by individual complaint.	Dismissed	—	—
Race discrimination	The written judgment records that all complaints in the claim were not well-founded and the claim was dismissed; it does not separate findings by individual complaint.	Dismissed	Race	—
Sex discrimination	The written judgment records that all complaints in the claim were not well-founded and the claim was dismissed; it does not separate findings by individual complaint.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	The written judgment records that all complaints in the claim were not well-founded and the claim was dismissed; it does not separate findings by individual complaint.	Dismissed	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.