Case 2405251/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Sabzehparvar v Done Brothers (Cash Betting) Limited t/a Betfred — 2021
- Case reference
- 2405251/2018
- Decision date
- 15 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tsamados
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Ms C Edwards, Mrs S Dengate
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Sabzehparvar
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal sat at London South on 12-15 October 2021 before Employment Judge Tsamados, with Ms C Edwards and Mrs S Dengate sitting by CVP. The claimant appeared in person assisted by Mr Sabzehparvar, and the respondent was represented by Mr D Mold, Counsel.
The unanimous judgment amended the respondent's name to Done Brothers (Cash Betting) Ltd t/a Betfred. The claimant's complaints of pregnancy discrimination and indirect sex discrimination were found to be unfounded, and the claim was dismissed.
The written record states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. The written judgment records no monetary remedy or award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The written judgment records the pregnancy discrimination complaint as unfounded and dismissed, with oral reasons given at the hearing. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | The written judgment identifies the complaint as indirect sex discrimination and records it as unfounded and dismissed, with oral reasons given at the hearing. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
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.