Case 2600101/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Mohammed Usman v Tanber Solutions Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2600101/2021
- Decision date
- 22 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Mohammed Usman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing treated as a final hearing under Rule 48, the tribunal noted that the respondent had not presented an ET3 within the required time. Having considered the claimant's ET1 and his oral evidence, the tribunal entered judgment under Rule 21.
The tribunal held that the redundancy payment claim had been presented outside the six-month period in section 164(1) ERA 1996, but accepted it under section 164(2). It also extended time for the breach of contract, unlawful deduction of wages and holiday pay complaints, finding it was not reasonably practicable for those complaints to have been presented in time.
On the merits, the tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment. It also found that the respondent breached the contract by failing to give the statutory minimum notice, had made an unauthorised deduction from wages of two weeks' pay, and had failed to pay holiday entitlement.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal accepted the redundancy payment claim despite late presentation under section 164(2) ERA 1996 and found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy. | Upheld | — | £3,132 |
| Breach of contract | Awarded as damages for failure to give minimum notice of termination under section 86 ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £2,616 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction of two weeks' wages. | Upheld | — | £523 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £523 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,794
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 164(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 164(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 86 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 21 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 48 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.