Case 6018546/2024 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs Laila Khaddaji Rachidi v HHGL Limited (In Administration) — 2025

Case reference: 6018546/2024
Decision date: 31 January 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Beyzade Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs Laila Khaddaji Rachidi

Respondent

HHGL Limited (In Administration)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant, Mrs Laila Khaddaji Rachidi, presented claims including sex discrimination, described in the judgment as sex discrimination including sexual harassment, and unfair dismissal. The respondent, HHGL Limited (In Administration), stated that no part of the sex discrimination claim was contested. The Employment Judge therefore determined that the sex discrimination claim could properly be decided under Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Sex discrimination	The judgment describes this as a claim of sex discrimination, including sexual harassment. Liability was determined under Rule 22 because the respondent stated that no part of the claim was contested. Remedy was left to a later hearing.	Upheld	Sex	—
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint under Rule 38. It found the claimant had less than two years' service, so she was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 ERA 1996, and she had not given an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.