Case 2207028/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E v Hioba Pret a Manger (Europe) Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2207028/2018
- Decision date
- 15 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Panel members
- Mr J Carroll, Mr P Secher
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt London Central, Employment Judge A M Snelson sat with Mr J Carroll and Mr P Secher and heard the Claimant in person and counsel for the Respondents on 13-15 October 2021.
The tribunal unanimously found the Claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal well-founded, but recorded that she was not entitled to any remedy for that claim. It also found a complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages well-founded and ordered the Respondents to pay £288.75 in respect of that claim.
The judgment records that the Claimant's other claims were dismissed. The final order does not set out separate reasons for each of those dismissed claims.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the complaint well-founded but recorded that the Claimant was not entitled to any remedy for that claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found a complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages well-founded and ordered payment of £288.75. | Upheld | — | £289 |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed as one of the Claimant's other claims; the judgment does not give separate reasons for it in the final order. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed as one of the Claimant's other claims; the judgment does not give separate reasons for it in the final order. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Dismissed as one of the Claimant's other claims; the judgment does not give separate reasons for it in the final order. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £289
- across all upheld claims
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.