Case 3303541/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Saddiq v Oxford Business College UK Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3303541/2024
- Decision date
- 4 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Ms B Osborne, Ms E Gibson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L Saddiq
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Reading on 4 August 2025 before Employment Judge Anstis with Ms B Osborne and Ms E Gibson, found that the claimant Mrs L Saddiq was unfairly dismissed by Oxford Business College UK Limited and was subject to unlawful pregnancy and maternity discrimination. The claimant's application to strike out the respondent's response was dismissed, as was the respondent's application for a preparation time order.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £509.61 as a basic award of compensation for unfair dismissal, and £24,800 as compensation for unlawful discrimination, together with a further £1,943.33 as interest on the discrimination award. The recoupment regulations were held not to apply.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Basic award of £509.61 for unfair dismissal; rounded to nearest GBP. | Upheld | — | £510 |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Compensation for unlawful pregnancy and maternity discrimination; £1,943.33 interest awarded separately. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | £24,800 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £27,253
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £510
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £24,800
- 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.