Case 6022943/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Z Hussain v Blundell Trading Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6022943/2025
- Decision date
- 18 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Noons Representation
- Venue
- Midlands West
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Z Hussain
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held that Mr Z Hussain's redundancy pay claim was well founded and ordered Blundell Trading Ltd to pay £12,100. The award was calculated as 12 multiplied by 1.5 multiplied by £700, less £500 already paid by the respondent.
The claims concerning unpaid overtime were well founded as both unlawful deduction from wages and breach of contract, with a single award of £1,000. The unlawful deduction claim for unpaid wages was also well founded, resulting in an award of £8,491.84, calculated as 14 multiplied by £606.56. The claim for unpaid notice pay and breach of contract was well founded, and the Tribunal awarded £7,278.72, calculated as 12 multiplied by £606.56. The awards recorded in the judgment total £28,870.56. Summary reasons were given orally at the hearing; the written judgment records no further findings or legal tests.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Calculated as 12 x 1.5 x £700, less £500 already paid by the respondent. | Upheld | — | £12,100 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid overtime; the judgment also characterised this complaint as breach of contract. | Upheld | — | £1,000 |
| Breach of contract | Unpaid overtime; this is the same jointly stated £1,000 award recorded for unlawful deduction from wages and breach of contract, not an additional award. | Upheld | — | £1,000 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid wages, calculated as 14 x £606.56. | Upheld | — | £8,492 |
| Breach of contract | Unpaid notice pay, calculated as 12 x £606.56. | Upheld | — | £7,279 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £28,871
- across all upheld claims
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.