Case 1308205/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Shabrez Iqbal v Joint Security Services Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1308205/2023
- Decision date
- 4 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gilroy KC
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mrs R J Pelter, Mr K Palmer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Shabrez Iqbal
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard in Birmingham before Employment Judge Gilroy KC, sitting with Mrs R J Pelter and Mr K Palmer. The Tribunal's judgment was unanimous. All claims brought by the Claimant, Shabrez Iqbal, against Joint Security Services Limited were dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim. It also dismissed the claim for non-payment of notice pay, described in the judgment as a claim for notice pay rather than as a separate award-bearing remedy.
The two equality claims were both dismissed: direct discrimination on grounds of race under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010, and direct discrimination on grounds of religion or belief under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010. The judgment does not record any remedy, because no claim succeeded.
The claim for unpaid holiday pay was also dismissed. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim described in the judgment as a claim for non-payment of notice pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct discrimination claim under s.13 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Direct discrimination claim under s.13 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim described in the judgment as a claim for unpaid holiday pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.