Case 2603628/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Hussain v N & N Carpets and Flooring Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2603628/2020
- Decision date
- 24 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Hussain
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr S Hussain was unfairly dismissed by N & N Carpets and Flooring Ltd. The judgment contains only that substantive liability finding and records that the respondent did not attend the hearing. The case was heard at Nottingham via CVP on 23 and 24 February 2022 before Employment Judge Fredericks.
On remedy, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £1,314.99 and a compensatory award of £22,793.16, making a total award of £24,108.15. The reasons note states that the compensatory award was originally made up of £29,625.10 for immediate loss and £350 for lost statutory rights, but it was then reduced by the statutory 52 weeks' gross pay cap under s124(1ZA)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996 to £22,793.16.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and awards a basic award and compensatory award in respect of that claim. The compensatory award was subject to the statutory 52 weeks' gross pay cap under s124(1ZA)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £24,108 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £24,108
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,315
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £22,793
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.124(1ZA)(b) Employment Rights Act 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.