Case 1306036/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Akhtar v Jaguar Land Rover Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 1306036/2024
- Decision date
- 14 August 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smart
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Akhtar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed Mr M Akhtar's unfair dismissal claim against Jaguar Land Rover Limited as not well founded. This judgment does not set out the factual findings or detailed reasoning for that decision; reasons were given orally at the hearing, and Mr Akhtar requested written reasons.
The tribunal also dismissed Mr Akhtar's claim that his dismissal amounted to discrimination arising from disability under sections 39 and 15 of the Equality Act 2010. It found that Jaguar Land Rover Limited's justification defence succeeded. All claims were dismissed, and the judgment recorded no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claim was not well founded. It records that reasons were given orally and that written reasons were requested. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claim concerned discriminatory dismissal under sections 39 and 15 of the Equality Act 2010. The respondent's justification defence succeeded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 15 Equality Act 2010 justification defence
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.