Case 1300997/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Tucker-Brown (Lay Representative) For the v Mr F Hussain (Solicitor) — 2022
- Case reference
- 1300997/2021
- Decision date
- 20 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gaskell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Tucker-Brown (Lay Representative) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Birmingham on 19 and 20 May 2022 before Employment Judge Gaskell, upheld the claimant’s unlawful deductions from wages claim under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It ordered the respondent, First Blue Health Limited, to pay the claimant £2,004.95 under section 24 of the Act.
The claimant’s protected disclosure detriment claim was dismissed. The tribunal found that claim was not well-founded under sections 48 and 49 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The unfair dismissal claim was also dismissed. The tribunal found that the claimant was not dismissed by the respondent, and therefore the claim under sections 94, 95, 98 and 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well-founded.
The tribunal also refused the claimant’s application for a preparation time order and refused the respondent’s application for costs. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written record notes that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the unlawful deductions from wages claim well-founded under section 13 ERA 1996 and ordered payment of £2,004.95 under section 24. | Upheld | — | £2,005 |
| Whistleblowing | The claim was pleaded as protected disclosure detriment. The tribunal found it was not well-founded and dismissed it under sections 48 and 49 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was not dismissed by the respondent and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim under sections 94, 95, 98 and 103A ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,005
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- Section 13 ERA 1996
- Section 24 ERA 1996
- Sections 48 and 49 ERA 1996
- Sections 94, 95, 98 and 103A 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.