Case 3201922/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Harris v Sai Prasana Ltd T/A Papa Johns — 2024
- Case reference
- 3201922/2023
- Decision date
- 26 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Representation Claimant
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Harris
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was heard at East London Hearing Centre by CVP on 26 June 2024 before Tribunal Judge D Brannan acting as an Employment Judge. The claimant, Miss K Harris, represented herself; the respondent, Sai Prasana Ltd T/A Papa Johns, was represented by Mr Ashfaq, Area Manager.
The written judgment records that the respondent must pay £5,684 to the claimant as the remedy for her unfair dismissal claim. The judgment does not set out any split between basic award, compensatory award, or interest in the extracted text provided.
The judgment also states that there is no separate remedy for disability discrimination. The extracted text does not give a further explanation of that point or a separate monetary award for the discrimination claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states the respondent must pay £5,684 as the remedy for the unfair dismissal claim. | Upheld | — | £5,684 |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that there is no separate remedy for disability discrimination, but the extracted text does not state a distinct disposal for the claim. | Other | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,684
- 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.