Case 6020540/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Ramzi v Great Harvest Foods Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6020540/2024
- Decision date
- 29 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hallen-
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Ramzi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr Ramzi was employed by Great Harvest Foods Ltd as a delivery driver from 4 August 2024 to 5 October 2024. It rejected his case that he had started in July 2024 as a manager, preferring the WhatsApp evidence, payslips and P45 material. The tribunal also found that the respondent dismissed him on 5 October 2024 for gross misconduct after he accepted £1,435 from a catering client directly into his own bank account without authorisation, and that the respondent later deducted that sum from his final pay.
On the protected disclosure dismissal claim, the tribunal held that Mr Ramzi did not prove that he had made the disclosures listed at the case management hearing. His witness statement did not address those alleged disclosures, his oral evidence introduced a different account about two colleagues' health and safety, and the WhatsApp messages did not support any protected disclosure case. The tribunal found that a complaint about cockroaches had been raised and dealt with, but no qualifying public interest disclosure was proved. The automatic unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.
The tribunal also dismissed the claim for unpaid notice pay, holding that summary dismissal was justified because the conduct amounted to gross misconduct and a repudiatory breach. The holiday pay claim failed because Mr Ramzi produced no evidence of unused statutory holiday or of being prevented from taking it. The unlawful deduction from wages claim succeeded because the respondent accepted there was no written contractual term and no prior written consent permitting the £1,435 deduction, and the tribunal rejected the implied-term argument. The claimant was awarded £1,435.00.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal claim for protected disclosures under the ERA. The tribunal found no qualifying protected disclosures were proved and held that dismissal was for gross misconduct after client funds were paid into the claimant's personal bank account without authorisation. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Claim for unpaid notice pay, pleaded in the case summary as breach of contract. The tribunal held that summary dismissal was justified because the claimant's conduct amounted to gross misconduct and a repudiatory breach. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for unpaid accrued holiday pay on termination. The tribunal found no evidence that the claimant had unused statutory holiday or that he had been prevented from taking it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent deducted £1,435 from the claimant's final wages after customer funds had been paid into his personal account. The tribunal found no written contractual term or prior written consent authorising the deduction and rejected the implied-term argument. | Upheld | — | £1,435 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,435
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.43B ERA 1996 qualifying disclosure
- Cavendish Munroe / Kilraine information test
- Chesterton Global v Nurmohamed public interest test
- s.103A ERA 1996 automatic unfair dismissal
- Smith v Hayle Town Council burden of proof
- Williams v Leeds United Football Club repudiatory breach
- s.13 ERA 1996 unlawful deduction
- Working Time Regulations 1998 regs 13, 13A, 14
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.