Case 3301771/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Ramos v “Bang Bang Oriental Foodhall” (a trading name of Edgware Capital Limited) R1 Yaki Ya! Ltd R2 — 2025
- Case reference
- 3301771/2023
- Decision date
- 31 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Ramos
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in Watford on 28 March 2025, Employment Judge Quill, sitting alone, determined a preliminary issue concerning the current respondent. The judgment records that the entity identified in the claim form as "Bang Bang Oriental Foodhall" is a trading name of Edgware Capital Limited.
The tribunal found that Edgware Capital Limited did not place the advert at page 43 of the hearing bundle, which was the subject of the complaint. On that basis, all and any complaints against Edgware Capital Limited, sued as "Bang Bang Oriental Foodhall", were dismissed.
The judgment also states that the case was not dismissed in its entirety. The claim was to continue against the new respondent, Yaki Ya! Ltd. No merits findings or remedy were recorded in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed on a preliminary issue as against Edgware Capital Limited, sued as "Bang Bang Oriental Foodhall". The tribunal found that this respondent did not place the advert that was the subject of the complaint. The judgment states that the entire claim was not dismissed and would continue against the new respondent, Yaki Ya! Ltd. | 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.