Case 2302084/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Elbaz v Shoe Embassy London Limited (In voluntary liquidation) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2302084/2020
- Decision date
- 15 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kelly
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W Elbaz
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed the claimant's claims for unfair dismissal, notice pay and holiday pay because they had been presented outside the relevant time limits. The judgment states that, for that reason, the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to consider those claims.
The Tribunal upheld the claimant's race discrimination claim. It found that the respondent discriminated against Mr W Elbaz because of his race and ordered the respondent to pay compensation of £4,500.00.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claim was presented outside the time limits, so the Tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction to consider it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment refers to this claim as 'notice pay'. It was dismissed because it was presented outside the time limits, and the Tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction to consider it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed because the claim was presented outside the time limits, so the Tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction to consider it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The Tribunal found that the respondent discriminated against the claimant because of his race and ordered compensation of £4,500.00. | Upheld | Race | £4,500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,500
- across all upheld claims
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.