Case 1305066/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Shaer v Iforce Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1305066/2023
- Decision date
- 2 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kenward
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mrs R Pelter, Mrs E Shenton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Shaer
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard the case at Birmingham on 31 March, 1 April and 2 April 2025 before Employment Judge Kenward, Mrs R Pelter and Mrs E Shenton. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel.
The written judgment records that the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal under sections 98 and 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well-founded and was dismissed. It also records that the claimant's complaint of disability discrimination by association under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 was not well-founded and was dismissed. The written record states that reasons were given orally and that written reasons would only be provided if requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The written judgment states that the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well-founded and was dismissed. Written reasons were not provided in the text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The written judgment states that the complaint of disability discrimination by association was not well-founded and was dismissed. Written reasons were not provided in the text. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Rights Act 1996 sections 98 and 111
- Equality Act 2010 section 13
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.