Case 3200935/2020 · Employment Tribunal

(1) Mr MT Chowdhury (2) Mr MO Faruq (3) Mr ME Hossain v Mr. Toslim Ahmed trading as “Universal Solicitors” — 2020

Case reference: 3200935/2020
Decision date: 16 November 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge A Ross

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

(1) Mr MT Chowdhury (2) Mr MO Faruq (3) Mr ME Hossain

Respondent

Mr. Toslim Ahmed trading as “Universal Solicitors”

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

These were remedy proceedings after a Rule 21 default judgment dated 6 November 2020, because the respondent had not filed an ET3 response. The hearing proceeded remotely on 11 November 2020 before Employment Judge A Ross sitting alone. The tribunal allowed the respondent to make submissions through a McKenzie Friend, but treated the argument that the claimants were not employees as barred by issue estoppel arising from the default judgment.

The tribunal found that Mr Chowdhury and Mr Faruq were employed as caseworkers from 30 September 2019 to 30 November 2019, and Mr Hossain from 30 September 2019 to 19 November 2019. It accepted that none of the claimants had been given contracts of employment, statements of terms and conditions or payslips despite repeated requests. It found that the claimants had resigned for the respondent's conduct and that they were entitled to statutory notice under s.86 Employment Rights Act 1996, but they could not recover unfair dismissal loss beyond the notice period because their service was under two years.

The tribunal upheld the unlawful deduction from wages, breach of contract and holiday pay claims. It awarded unpaid net wages of £1,200 to Mr Chowdhury, £1,200 to Mr Faruq and £1,140 to Mr Hossain, notice pay of £276.92 each to Mr Chowdhury and Mr Faruq and £415.38 to Mr Hossain, and holiday pay of £225 each to Mr Chowdhury and Mr Faruq and £250 to Mr Hossain. It also made a higher award under s.38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide written particulars, of £1,217 each to Mr Chowdhury and Mr Faruq and £2,032 to Mr Hossain, producing final awards of £2,918.92, £2,918.92 and £3,837.38.

The tribunal dismissed the applications for preparation time orders and costs, finding that the threshold for costs under Rule 76 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure had not been met. It also amended the respondent's name to Mr Toslim Ahmed trading as Universal Solicitors.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unlawful deduction from wages	The tribunal found each claimant had not been paid for work done in November 2019; it awarded £1,200 to Mr Chowdhury, £1,200 to Mr Faruq and £1,140 to Mr Hossain.	Upheld	—	£3,540
Breach of contract	The tribunal found each claimant was entitled to statutory notice under s.86 Employment Rights Act 1996 because no contractual notice period had been agreed; it awarded £276.92 each to Mr Chowdhury and Mr Faruq, and £415.38 to Mr Hossain.	Upheld	—	£969
Holiday pay	The tribunal found each claimant was entitled to accrued but unpaid holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations 1998; the figures agreed were £225 each for Mr Chowdhury and Mr Faruq and £250 for Mr Hossain.	Upheld	—	£700
Other	The tribunal made a higher award under s.38 Employment Act 2002 because the respondent had failed to provide statements of terms and conditions under s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996; it awarded four weeks gross pay to each claimant.	Upheld	—	£4,466

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £9,675; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

8 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.