Case 3205121/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Gamit v Loomis UK Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3205121/2021
- Decision date
- 26 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Overton Dated
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Gamit
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the East London Hearing Centre on 13 January 2022, Tribunal Judge Overton dismissed all of the claims recorded in the judgment. The tribunal found that the Respondent had paid the Claimant the wages that were properly payable to him, so the claim for unauthorised deductions from wages was not well-founded.
The tribunal also held that the claim for payment of accrued holiday pay upon termination was not well-founded. No separate monetary award was recorded for that claim.
The wrongful dismissal claim was also rejected. The tribunal found that the Respondent gave one week’s notice of termination and that the notice period was paid. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unauthorised deductions from wages. The tribunal found the wages properly payable had been paid. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for payment of accrued holiday pay upon termination. The tribunal held the claim was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the wrongful dismissal claim was not well-founded because the Respondent gave one week’s notice of termination and that period of notice was paid. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.