Case 2302127/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Bjornsdottir v 1 Mr B Chervenkov 2 Teana London Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2302127/2022
- Decision date
- 10 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heath Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Bjornsdottir
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis is a Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal recorded that any unfair dismissal claim had been wrongly coded by administrative error and dismissed that claim. It then identified a separate list of claims that succeed, namely race related harassment, age related harassment, sex related harassment, victimisation, unpaid annual leave, unlawful deduction from wages, failure to provide a statement of initial employment particulars, and wrongful dismissal.
Claims and outcomes
9 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that any claim for unfair dismissal, wrongly coded by tribunal in administrative error, is dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | Listed as race related harassment and said to succeed; remedy to be determined at a Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Harassment | Listed as age related harassment and said to succeed; remedy to be determined at a Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | Age | — |
| Harassment | Listed as sex related harassment and said to succeed; remedy to be determined at a Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | Listed among the claims that succeed; remedy to be determined at a Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment refers to unpaid annual leave; it succeeds and remedy is deferred to a Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Listed as unlawful deduction from wages and said to succeed; remedy to be determined at a Remedy 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.