Case 2208537/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Elbeih v Seven Dials Dry Cleaning Ltd (in administration) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2208537/2023
- Decision date
- 25 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Elbeih
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment. The respondent, Seven Dials Dry Cleaning Ltd (in administration), did not file an ET3 response, so the claims were undefended. Employment Judge Adkin recorded that the claims succeed.
The judgment does not identify the individual findings by claim type, and it does not set out any remedy figures. It states instead that the remedy to which the claimant is entitled will be determined at a later Remedy Hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment is a Rule 21 default judgment and states that the claims succeed, but it does not give claim-specific findings or a separate award. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment is a Rule 21 default judgment and states that the claims succeed, but it does not give claim-specific findings or a separate award. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment is a Rule 21 default judgment and states that the claims succeed, but it does not give claim-specific findings or a separate award. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment is a Rule 21 default judgment and states that the claims succeed, but it does not give claim-specific findings or a separate award. | 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.