Case 6002876/2024 · Employment Tribunal
A Hussain v Radio Fiza Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002876/2024
- Decision date
- 10 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Welch
Parties
2 namedClaimant
A Hussain
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Midlands East Employment Tribunal on 25 May 2024. The respondent failed to present a valid response in time, and Employment Judge Welch determined the claim (or part of it) under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure without a contested hearing. The hearing previously listed for 31 January 2025 was cancelled.
On the merits, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £15,922.09 gross. The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £1,808.82. The respondent was ordered to pay £17,730.91 in total. The judgment was approved by Employment Judge Welch on 8 January 2025 and sent to the parties on 10 January 2025.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages; respondent ordered to pay £15,922.09 gross. Determined under rule 22 after respondent failed to file a valid response in time. | Upheld | — | £15,922 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages of £1,808.82 awarded. | Upheld | — | £1,809 |
| Unfair dismissal | Listed by gov.uk as an unfair dismissal claim, but the judgment text provided does not expressly adjudicate an unfair dismissal claim under ERA 1996 s.98 — it addresses unlawful deduction of wages and breach of contract (notice) only. Outcome recorded as 'other' to avoid asserting a finding the judgment does not make. PDF is short (1 page) and may be a partial/rule 22 judgment. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £17,731
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.