Case 2414515/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Nawaz v Optimal Claim Limited T/A Optimal Solicitors — 2022
- Case reference
- 2414515/2021
- Decision date
- 27 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Cowen REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Nawaz
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the remote Manchester hearing on 20 June 2022, Employment Judge L Cowen found that Optimal Claim Ltd t/a Optimal Solicitors was in breach of contract because it had not paid Mr D Nawaz the wages he was entitled to for work done during his notice period. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay damages of £3,619.66, and directed that tax and national insurance deductions be made from that sum.
The tribunal also dealt with the respondent's counterclaim that Mr Nawaz owed £724.21. That counterclaim was found not well-founded and was dismissed. No separate monetary award was made on the counterclaim, and the judgment does not record any additional remedy beyond the damages awarded to the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent was in breach of contract for not paying the claimant the wages he was entitled to for work done during his notice period; damages of £3,619.66 were awarded, subject to tax and national insurance deductions. | Upheld | — | £3,620 |
| Other | The respondent's counterclaim that the claimant owed £724.21 was found not well-founded and was dismissed; the judgment does not specify a separate legal label for the counterclaim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,620
- across all upheld claims
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.