Case 2306011/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Elbaz v Shoe Embassy London Limited (In voluntary liquidation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2306011/2021
- Decision date
- 7 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kelly
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W Elbaz
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed Mr W Elbaz's claims against Shoe Embassy London Limited (in voluntary liquidation). The short judgment does not set out the underlying causes of action, but records that the claims in this case had already been decided by the tribunal in case number 2302084/2020.
By a letter dated 14 June 2022, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations as to why the claim should not be struck out because it was vexatious or had no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment records that the claimant did not make any written representations within the time allowed.
On 7 July 2022, Employment Judge Kelly recorded that the claims were dismissed. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment, and no separate remedy findings are set out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the individual causes of action in this decision text. It states only that the claimant's claims were dismissed and that the claims in this case had already been decided in case number 2302084/2020. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- struck out because it was vexatious or had no reasonable prospect of success
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.