Case 6003404/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Banaras v Mr Tariq Ayub Khan trading as Maxivision Optical Centre Heard: BY CVP — 2024
- Case reference
- 6003404/2024
- Decision date
- 9 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W Banaras
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe matter came before Employment Judge JM Wade at a final hearing by CVP on 9 December 2024. The named respondent, trading as Maxivision Optical Centre, did not file a response and did not attend. The tribunal was satisfied on the file that the respondent was a sole trader, having checked Companies House and finding no company registered at the operating address, and that the trading name was used on documents.
The judge accepted that the claims were discernible in the claim form and, to the extent permission to amend was required, granted it. The sums awarded mirrored those set out in the claim form save for an arithmetical error by the claimant that became apparent at the hearing. In the absence of any response by the return date, the judge considered it in the interests of justice to give judgment under Rule 21.
The claimant succeeded on all four claims: a statutory redundancy payment of £4,000; damages for breach of contract (notice pay) of £1,750 gross; an unlawful deduction from wages of £250 (one week's gross wages); and holiday pay on termination under Regulation 14 of £1,250. The total payable by the respondent is £7,250.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment awarded under Rule 21 judgment. | Upheld | — | £4,000 |
| Breach of contract | Damages for breach of contract (notice pay), gross sum. | Upheld | — | £1,750 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | One week's gross wages. | Upheld | — | £250 |
| Holiday pay | Failure to pay holiday pay on termination under Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations. | Upheld | — | £1,250 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,250
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21
- Regulation 14
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.