Case 3302108/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K Hlavata v Sandtrend Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3302108/2023
- Decision date
- 11 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Mr A Kapur, Mrs F Tankard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms K Hlavata
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Hawksworth, sitting with Mr A Kapur and Mrs F Tankard at Reading on 7-11 April 2025, made a unanimous decision in the case of Ms K Hlavata against Sandtrend Limited.
The Tribunal upheld the complaints of indirect sex discrimination and unfair dismissal. The complaints of direct discrimination failed and were dismissed.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £36,720.92 comprising compensation for financial losses of £15,060.48 (including £1,294.39 interest), injury to feelings of £13,085.48 (including £2,085.48 interest), a basic award of £6,730.78, £500 for loss of statutory rights, and £1,344.18 grossing up for tax. Reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Indirect sex discrimination upheld. Award split with unfair dismissal complaint; not separately quantified per claim. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal upheld; combined with indirect sex discrimination remedy. | Upheld | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination complaints dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £36,721
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £6,731
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £15,060
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.