Case 3306291/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Z Akhtar v Times Pbs Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3306291/2024
- Decision date
- 19 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Warren REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
2 namedMiss Z Akhtar
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Warren, sitting at Norwich by CVP with counsel for the claimant and the respondent not attending, recorded that the claimant had withdrawn her unfair dismissal and protected-disclosure detriment claims, which were dismissed upon withdrawal.
The complaint of sex discrimination was found well-founded. The respondent was ordered to pay £34,960 for past financial losses, £2,765 interest on those losses under the Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) Regulations 1996, £1,590 for future financial losses, £25,000 for injury to feelings and £3,962 interest on the injury to feelings award. Complaints of holiday pay (£1,613) and unauthorised deductions (£592) were also well-founded.
The judge found that the respondent had acted unreasonably in not responding to the proceedings and ordered costs of £5,412 against it. The total payable under the judgment was £75,894.
Claims and outcomes
5 claims adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Upheld | Sex | £68,277 |
| Holiday pay | Upheld | — | £1,613 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Upheld | — | £592 |
Legal tests applied
1 referenceRemedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £75,894
- Compensatory award
- £36,550
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.