Case 1306234/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Chovghi Iazdi v Grayson Automotive Services Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 1306234/2024
- Decision date
- 29 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Flood Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Chovghi Iazdi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed the complaint of unfair dismissal under section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996 because the claimant did not have the required two years' qualifying service under section 108 ERA 1996.
The Tribunal also dismissed the breach of contract complaint concerning notice pay, recording that it was not well-founded. The complaints of direct race discrimination under section 13 Equality Act 2010 were likewise recorded as not well-founded and dismissed.
The written judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within the applicable time.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The direct race discrimination complaints under section 13 Equality Act 2010 were not well-founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant did not have the required two years' qualifying service under section 108 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The breach of contract complaint in relation to notice pay was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13 Equality Act 2010
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.