Case 3201953/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Sanakulova v Lola’s Cupcakes Limited and 1 other — 2026
- Case reference
- 3201953/2023
- Decision date
- 9 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Park Appearances
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms L Sanakulova
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs L Sanakulova withdrew her direct race discrimination and race-related harassment claims concerning matters other than the meeting on 9 May 2023 and the dismissal. Those claims were dismissed on withdrawal.
The judgment also records that direct race discrimination and race-related harassment claims were unsuccessful and dismissed. The written wording describes these claims in the same terms as the withdrawn claims, so it does not make clear which allegations remained for decision. All claims of direct religious discrimination and harassment related to religion were unsuccessful and dismissed.
The claim that Ms Sanakulova suffered a detriment because she had made a protected disclosure was unsuccessful and dismissed. The tribunal gave summary reasons orally; the written judgment records no factual findings, legal tests, or monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment says claims concerning matters other than the meeting on 9 May 2023 and the dismissal were dismissed on withdrawal. Paragraph 2 uses the same description for claims also said to be unsuccessful and dismissed, so the precise division between the withdrawn and adjudicated allegations is unclear. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Harassment | The judgment says claims concerning matters other than the meeting on 9 May 2023 and the dismissal were dismissed on withdrawal. Paragraph 2 uses the same description for claims also said to be unsuccessful and dismissed, so the precise division between the withdrawn and adjudicated allegations is unclear. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Paragraph 2 records that the direct race discrimination claims described there were unsuccessful and dismissed, but repeats the same description of their scope as paragraph 1, which records withdrawal. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Paragraph 2 records that the race-related harassment claims described there were unsuccessful and dismissed, but repeats the same description of their scope as paragraph 1, which records withdrawal. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. |
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.