Case 2206435/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms H v Gizit Limited t/a Elisa Organic and Whole Foods and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2206435/2021
- Decision date
- 29 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Norris
- Venue
- Central London
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms H
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 29 June 2022, Employment Judge Norris, sitting alone via CVP, entered default judgment under Rule 21 because the respondents did not file ET3 grounds of resistance. The first respondent's name was amended to Gizit Limited t/a Elisa Organic and Whole Foods.
The claim succeeded against the first respondent for unlawful deductions from wages of £758.34 and unpaid holiday pay of £178.52. The claim for failure to provide a statement of terms and conditions of employment also succeeded, but remedy for that claim was left to a later remedy hearing.
Against both respondents, the tribunal upheld harassment related to religion, race and sex contrary to section 40(1)(a) and/or section 108(2) Equality Act 2010, and conduct contrary to section 39(7)(b) Equality Act 2010 said to entitle the claimant to terminate her employment without notice. Remedy for those claims was also deferred to the remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £758 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £179 |
| Other | Failure to provide a statement of terms and conditions of employment; remedy deferred to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to religion, race and sex. The judgment groups these characteristics together; remedy deferred to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment records conduct contrary to section 39(7)(b) Equality Act 2010 entitling the claimant to terminate her employment without notice; remedy deferred to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
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.