Case 1307642/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mr Y Ilyas v Jaguar Land Rover Limited — 2020

Case reference: 1307642/2019
Decision date: 14 December 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Cookson
Venue: Birmingham
Panel members: Mr Khan, Mr Forward

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr Y Ilyas

Respondent

Jaguar Land Rover Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal unanimously decided that Mr Ilyas was unfairly dismissed contrary to s94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 when he was dismissed by reason of capability.

The tribunal also decided that it was in the interests of justice to apply a 75% deduction to any compensation for unfair dismissal under the principles in Polkey v AE Dayton Services Limited.

The claimant's Equality Act 2010 claims under s15 and ss20 and 21 were found not well founded and were dismissed.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The judgment states the claimant was unfairly dismissed contrary to s94 ERA when dismissed by reason of capability, with a 75% Polkey deduction to any compensation.	Upheld	—	—
Disability discrimination	The judgment dismisses claims under s15 and ss20 and 21 Equality Act 2010. Those provisions concern discrimination arising from disability and reasonable adjustments, although the short judgment does not otherwise describe the protected characteristic.	Dismissed	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.