Case 1300419/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Hussain v Sleep Revolution Ltd (in voluntary liquidation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 1300419/2021
- Decision date
- 4 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Steward Representation
- Venue
- West Midlands
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Hussain
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Hussain worked for Sleep Revolution Ltd from January 2017 until 17 July 2020. He brought claims for unlawful deduction of wages and holiday pay, seeking £87,745.94. The respondent, which was in voluntary liquidation, did not attend the hearing but had filed a defence saying the claimant had been paid the national minimum wage for 25 contracted hours per week and that the claim was out of time under s.23(2) ERA 1996.
The tribunal recorded that no bundle had been presented and that the only documents before it were the ET1, ET3 and grounds of resistance. It found that the claimant had provided no documentary evidence to substantiate the claim. In oral evidence he said the amount claimed had been calculated by adding up hours worked and dividing them by the national minimum wage, and that the claim was really about voluntary overtime rather than contracted hours.
On limitation, the tribunal found that the claim was received by the tribunal on 23 November 2020, whereas the ACAS early conciliation extension ended on 17 November 2020. It also found that the latest possible deduction would have been by 17 July 2020 when the claimant left employment, so the claim was more than three months late even on the claimant's own chronology.
On the substance, the tribunal was not satisfied that any unlawful deductions had actually been made and said there was no evidence regarding holiday pay. It concluded that both claims failed. The reasons also record that the claimant said he knew he would not win but wanted to try anyway, which the tribunal said caused it to question the basis of the claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed as out of time and on the merits; the tribunal found no evidence that unlawful deductions were made and noted the claimant said he was paid national minimum wage for 25 contracted hours, with the figure claimed appearing to be based on unpaid voluntary overtime. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed; the tribunal said there was no evidence before it regarding holiday pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.13(1) ERA 1996
- s.23(2)(a) ERA 1996
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.