A woman who specifically asked whether a dessert contained nuts was rushed to hospital after being served a strawberry pot containing traces of hazelnut, before undercover Trading Standards officers returned 12 days later, asked the same question and were sold another one.
A Bradford magistrate said “someone could have lost their life” after hearing how the woman suffered a severe and immediate allergic reaction to a dessert bought from Cha Cha Chai on Ingleby Road.
The customer had checked with staff before ordering the Strawberry Pot because of her nut allergy and was told the Belgian chocolate sauce used on the dessert did not contain nuts.
But after taking a bite, she went into anaphylactic shock.
Her EpiPen failed to control the reaction and an ambulance was called, with the woman taken to hospital where her condition became serious enough for an intensive care consultant to be called.
She survived but told prosecutors the experience has left her too frightened to eat desserts.
The case became even more concerning when West Yorkshire Trading Standards sent undercover officers to the drive-thru just 12 days later.
They ordered the same dessert and, like the woman, specifically asked whether it contained any trace of nuts.
They too were served a Strawberry Pot.
This time, however, officers sent it for laboratory analysis.
Hazelnut was detected.
Prosecutors told Bradford Magistrates’ Court that the level found was not consistent with accidental cross-contamination.
“It seems Nutella dessert sauce was used,” the court heard.
‘My throat felt like it had been cut up’
Israr Nabi, 46, of Ashwell Road, a director of Cha Cha Chai Ingleby Ltd, appeared before Bradford Magistrates’ Court on Friday alongside the company and pleaded guilty to offences arising from the incident and subsequent Trading Standards investigation.
The court heard the original incident happened on 4 May, 2025, when the woman visited the Ingleby Road drive-thru and ordered a strawberry cup, strawberries covered in chocolate sauce.
Knowing the potential consequences of her allergy, she asked staff before ordering whether the sauce contained nuts.
She was told there were no nuts in the Belgian chocolate sauce and was served the dessert.
Mrs Julian, prosecuting on behalf of Trading Standards, told the court: “When she took a bite she had a severe and immediate allergic reaction.
“An EpiPen did not help and an ambulance was called. When she was in hospital it was so serious that an ICU consultant was called.
“Fortunately, she made a recovery.”
The woman described feeling as though her throat had been “cut up”.
The court heard the anaphylactic reaction also caused her potassium levels to fall and she required a six-hour potassium infusion before they returned to normal.
She was eventually discharged from hospital the following day.
But the impact did not end there.
The woman told prosecutors she is now too afraid to eat desserts and said the incident had caused damage to the lining of her stomach.
Undercover officers test the same dessert
West Yorkshire Trading Standards launched an investigation following the incident.
On 16 May, 2025, just 12 days after the woman was hospitalised, undercover officers visited the drive-thru.
They ordered the same Strawberry Pot and specifically asked whether it contained any traces of nuts.
The dessert they were given was subsequently sent for analysis and found to contain hazelnut.
Prosecutors said the amount detected was not consistent with cross-contamination.
The investigation established that the business used two different sauces, Belgian chocolate and Nutella, but both were being decanted from their original packaging into unlabelled bottles.
Trading Standards also examined what allergy training had been provided to staff.
Despite the business being aware that a customer had suffered a serious allergic reaction, the court heard it could provide “no evidence” that staff had received allergy training in the 12 days between the woman’s hospitalisation and the undercover test purchase.
Officers requested documentation showing how staff training was being monitored, but the court heard most of the documents supplied were blank.
Training certificate dated in the future
The investigation then took another turn.
When Trading Standards asked in January for evidence that staff had subsequently received training, certificates relating to three members of staff were provided.
But officers examined the metadata behind the documents.
The court heard the certificates had been created earlier that same day.
One claimed that training had been completed on 15 September, 2026, a date which, when the certificate was supplied, had not even happened.
“This is a date we have not yet reached,” Mrs Julian told magistrates.
She said it was clear the certificates were “not authentic”, adding that “it was an attempt to show training has taken place when clearly it has not”.
Cha Cha Chai Ingleby Ltd and Nabi were charged with offences including selling food not of the nature demanded by the purchaser and failing to comply with food safety requirements.
The company was also charged with knowingly furnishing information which was false or misleading.
Mr Arshad, defending, told magistrates there had been no further bad conduct involving the business following the investigation.
“There has not been a systematic failure in relation to the overall business,” he said.
He told the court Nabi had no previous convictions and said the investigation had provided “a real valuable insight into the way in which allergens should be considered by people who are not health experts”.
The court was told training had since been put in place.
However, no training certificates were produced to magistrates during the hearing.
Questions were also raised about the company’s finances after magistrates asked why no financial information had been provided.
Mr Arshad said company accounts had not been filed for two years.
When magistrates pointed out that companies are legally required to file accounts, the defence said Nabi’s accountant was “trying to resolve various matters with HMRC”.
“The documents are not available, it is what it is,” Mr Arshad said.
The court was told the business had an annual turnover of around £30,000, although no evidence was produced to substantiate the figure.
‘Someone could have lost their life’
Sentencing, Chair of the Bench Steven Feeley said Nabi had “deliberately attempted to mislead Trading Standards” by providing the false certificates.
But it was the potential consequences of the original food safety failure that drew the starkest warning.
“Someone could have lost their life because of this man’s actions,” Mr Feeley said.
Nabi was fined £2,304 and ordered to pay a £922 surcharge and £2,909 in costs.
Cha Cha Chai Ingleby Ltd was separately fined £4,608, ordered to pay a £1,843 surcharge and £2,909 in costs.
The combined financial penalty for Nabi and the company totals £15,495.
