Case 6001245/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Florentin Moraru v Boohoo.com UK Limited Heard: in Sheffield on 2,3,4,5 and 6 June 2025 — 2025
- Case reference
- 6001245/2024
- Decision date
- 23 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ayre
- Panel members
- Mr D Crowe, Mr D Fields
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Florentin Moraru
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was dismissed after taking and storing promotional chewing gum. The tribunal found that a reasonable employer would not have dismissed in the circumstances, noting that the claimant believed taking the gum was common practice and authorised, and that no reduction should be made for Polkey or contributory conduct.
The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to three weeks' notice and that his conduct did not amount to gross misconduct or otherwise justify termination without notice. The respondent therefore breached his contract by failing to give notice or pay in lieu.
The direct race discrimination claim, based on Romanian nationality, was dismissed. The tribunal found insufficient evidence that the named comparators were in materially the same circumstances and concluded that the claimant had not shown anything more than a difference in treatment and race.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the claimant was unfairly dismissed. Remedy was reserved for a separate hearing, with no Polkey or contributory conduct reduction. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the respondent breached the claimant's contract by failing to give or pay three weeks' notice. | Upheld | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The direct race discrimination claim relied on Romanian nationality and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.86 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Madrassy
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.