Case 3306571/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Chrissi v Heimish Fish Limited and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 3306571/2021
- Decision date
- 27 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tuck KC
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr T Maclean, Mr S Bury
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr M Chrissi
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal upheld the claimant's claims against the first respondent for unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal. It also upheld the claim for unlawful deductions from wages, finding sums due for pay for 1-24 February 2021 and commission. In addition, it upheld claims for failure to provide written reasons for dismissal and failure to provide written statement of employment.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | Remedy for wrongful dismissal was reserved to the tribunal and listed for 9 May 2024. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awarded for pay for 1-24 February 2021 (£2,368.80) and commission (£534.50). | Upheld | — | £2,903 |
| Unfair dismissal | Remedy for unfair dismissal was reserved to the tribunal and listed for 9 May 2024. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Failure to provide written reasons for dismissal; awarded 2 weeks' pay at the statutory maximum, stated as £1,050. | Upheld | — | £1,050 |
| Other | Failure to provide written statement of employment; awarded 2 weeks' pay at the statutory maximum, stated as £1,050. | Upheld | — | £1,050 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,003
- 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.