Case 1402752/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Iftekhar Ahmed v Maritime and Coastguard Agency — 2022
- Case reference
- 1402752/2020
- Decision date
- 16 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray And
- Panel members
- Mr Bompas, Ms Maidment
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Iftekhar Ahmed
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat by video at Southampton from 7 to 11 February 2022 before Employment Judge Gray, with members Mr Bompas and Ms Maidment. The claimant, Mr Iftekhar Ahmed, was represented by counsel, and the respondent, Maritime and Coastguard Agency, was also represented by counsel.
The unanimous judgment records that the complaints of unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination and victimisation all failed and were dismissed. The written record does not set out the tribunal's reasons, because reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons would only be provided if requested within the stated time limit.
No remedy or monetary award is recorded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the complaint of unfair dismissal failed and was dismissed; no written reasons are included in this record. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment records that the complaint of direct race discrimination failed and was dismissed; no written reasons are included in this record. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment records that the complaint of victimisation failed and was dismissed; the protected act or any linked protected characteristic is not specified in this written record. | 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.