Case 2600266/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Muhammed Maskeen v Tanber Solutions Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2600266/2021
- Decision date
- 22 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Muhammed Maskeen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal first dealt with limitation. It held that the redundancy payment claim had been presented outside the six-month period in section 164(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, but accepted it under section 164(2). It also held that the breach of contract, unlawful deduction from wages and holiday pay claims were out of time, but extended time because it was not reasonably practicable for those complaints to have been presented in time.
The preliminary hearing was treated as a final hearing under Rule 48. The respondent had not filed an ET3 within the required time, and the tribunal considered it appropriate to enter judgment under Rule 21 on the basis of the claimant's ET1 and oral evidence.
On the merits, the tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment. It also found that the respondent failed to give the statutory minimum notice, had made an unauthorised deduction of two weeks' wages, and had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement, and it awarded the sums stated for each of those claims.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal accepted the claim out of time under section 164(2) ERA 1996 and found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy. | Upheld | — | £2,610 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal extended time and found dismissal in breach of contract because minimum notice under section 86 ERA 1996 was not given. | Upheld | — | £1,308 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Award for 2 weeks' wages at £261.60 per week. | Upheld | — | £523 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal extended time and found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £157 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,598
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 164(1) ERA 1996
- section 164(2) ERA 1996
- not reasonably practicable
- Rule 48 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 21 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 86 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.