Case 1806708/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Wilson (counsel) For the v Mr Zabeer Hussain T/a The Village Cleaners — 2020
- Case reference
- 1806708/2019
- Decision date
- 3 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Wilson (counsel) For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss E Cartlidge brought complaints of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal after her dismissal following about nine years' employment by Mr Zabeer Hussain t/a The Village Cleaners. The respondent filed a response but did not attend the hearing, and the response had been struck out for failure to comply with directions. The tribunal proceeded under Rule 21 and found there was sufficient information on the file to determine the claims in the claimant's favour. It also found that the respondent was the employer at all material times.
On liability, the tribunal held that both complaints were well founded and succeeded. It relied on the claimant's witness statement and documentary material, including communications from the respondent as employer. No contrary evidence was advanced because the respondent did not attend or challenge the strike-out.
On remedy, the tribunal heard evidence from the claimant about her losses. It found she had nine years' continuous employment, worked four hours per day, four days per week, and had not found replacement work. It accepted that her lost earnings to the date of hearing, and for at least a further six months, were attributable to the dismissal, and it found no evidence that she had failed to mitigate those losses. The tribunal applied the statutory cap of 52 weeks' pay to the compensatory award, noted that uplifts for failure to comply with the ACAS Code and failure to provide written particulars of employment were sought, and calculated the awards using weekly pay of £131.36. It awarded a basic award of £1,773.36 and a compensatory award of £6,830.72, making a total judgment sum of £8,604.08. It recorded that wrongful dismissal damages were subsumed within those awards to avoid double recovery, and that the recoupment regulations did not apply.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the complaint well founded and awarded a basic award of £1,773.36 and a compensatory award of £6,830.72; the judgment does not split the overall award between this claim and wrongful dismissal. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal said damages for wrongful dismissal were properly treated as subsumed within the unfair dismissal awards to avoid double recovery. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,604
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,773
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £6,831
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 21
- ACAS Code
- statutory cap of 52 weeks' pay
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.