Case 2603058/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr U Mian v Wilson James Limited FINAL HEARING — 2022
- Case reference
- 2603058/2021
- Decision date
- 3 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Camp Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr U Mian
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr U Mian, brought claims against Wilson James Limited for breach of contract and unlawful deduction from wages. The tribunal accepted that the respondent had breached the contract by failing to allow 28 days' paid holiday per annum, but held that it had no jurisdiction to determine that claim because the claimant remained employed by the respondent.
The tribunal also accepted that there had been an unauthorised deduction from wages in relation to a day off on or about 4 December 2020. That claim nevertheless failed because it was presented outside the relevant time limits, so the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to deal with it. As a result, the claimant's entire claim failed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent had been breaching the claimant's contract by failing to allow 28 days' paid holiday per annum, but held it had no jurisdiction to determine a breach of contract claim because the claimant remained employed by the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found there had been an unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of a day off on or about 4 December 2020, but held the claim was brought outside the relevant time limits and therefore could not be determined. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.