Case 3205262/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms F Athif v Mr M J Lallmohamud — 2023
- Case reference
- 3205262/2021
- Decision date
- 3 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jones Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Ms T Jansen, Ms C Whitehouse
Parties
3 namedMs F Athif
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Jones with members Ms T Jansen and Ms C Whitehouse found that the claimant Ms F Athif was employed by the second respondent Spice E17 Ltd. The Tribunal proceeded in the absence of both respondents after multiple late adjournment applications by the first respondent, finding that he had not provided proper medical evidence to justify non-attendance.
The complaints of indirect sex discrimination against both respondents and harassment related to sex against the first respondent succeeded, as did claims for failure to provide written terms and conditions and unlawful deduction of wages. The Tribunal awarded £10,000 for injury to feelings and £1,857.12 in interest, plus £17.82 holiday pay and £534.60 for the failure to provide written terms, giving a remedy of £15,409.54.
A preparation time order of £1,056 (32 hours at £33/hour) was made under Rule 75 on the basis that the respondents had conducted their defence vexatiously and unreasonably, including causing three previous hearings to be adjourned. The total payable to the claimant was £16,465.54. PDF text was truncated; the full reasoning on indirect discrimination and harassment was not entirely visible.
Claims and outcomes
5 claims adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Other | Upheld | — | £535 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Upheld | — | £18 |
Legal tests applied
4 referencesRemedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £16,466
Source document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.