Case 2207844/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss F Ahmed v St Pancras Patisserie Ltd t/a Elan Café — 2023
- Case reference
- 2207844/2022
- Decision date
- 10 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Panel members
- Mr P Brione, Mrs N Sandler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss F Ahmed
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningSitting at London Central on 9-10 November 2023 before Employment Judge A M Snelson with members Mr P Brione and Mrs N Sandler, the tribunal heard the Claimant in person and Mr S Ripani for the Respondent. It unanimously held that the Claimant's complaint of indirect discrimination related to religion or belief was well-founded.
The judgment records that all other claims were dismissed. No separate reasons are set out in the extracted text for those dismissed claims, and no additional claim types are identified in the judgment extract.
By consent, and in full satisfaction of the Claimant's remedy claims for the successful complaint, the Respondent agreed to pay £7,690 within 21 days of being supplied with the Claimant's banking details. The Respondent also agreed to accept any future request by the Claimant for employment at its Park Lane premises, provided that it has a suitable vacancy.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Religion or belief discrimination | The tribunal found the complaint of indirect discrimination related to religion or belief well-founded. The judgment records that the parties then agreed, by consent and in full satisfaction of the Claimant's remedy claims for that complaint, a payment of £7,690 and a future employment condition for the Respondent's Park Lane premises, subject to a suitable vacancy. | Upheld | Religion or belief | £7,690 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,690
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £7,690
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.