Case 3200549/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Leila Boukhedimi v Acai Berry Foods Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3200549/2024
- Decision date
- 12 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Beyzade Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Leila Boukhedimi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place at East London Hearing Centre before Employment Judge B Beyzade on 10, 11 and 12 December 2024. The tribunal recorded that the claimant was represented by Mr Anis Madoui and the respondent by Mr Steven Overs. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written record states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
The claimant's unfair dismissal complaint was withdrawn by the claimant and was dismissed under Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The tribunal also determined that the claimant's complaints of direct religion or belief discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 were not well founded and were dismissed.
No monetary remedy was recorded in the judgment, and no award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaint was withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed under Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The claimant's complaints of direct religion or belief discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 were found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 52
- section 13 Equality Act 2010
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.