Case 1802929/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Romelle Shoaib-Brown v Iqvia Ies UK Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1802929/2022
- Decision date
- 23 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Date
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Romelle Shoaib-Brown
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a remedy judgment in the case of Romelle Shoaib-Brown v IQVIA IES UK Limited heard at Leeds Employment Tribunal via CVP on 22 February 2023 before Employment Judge Sills. The judgment records that the claimant was represented by Mr Mugliston and the respondent by Mr Turner.
The tribunal awarded the claimant £1,541.07 under section 11 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 because of two breaches of the claimant's rights under section 10 of that Act. No further breakdown of the award is given in the short text provided.
The judgment also records that written reasons were requested at the hearing and would be sent to the parties in due course. No lay members are listed, and no discrimination or other substantive claim types are identified in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The remedy judgment states that the claimant was awarded £1,541.07 under section 11 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 for two breaches of rights under section 10 of that Act. | Upheld | — | £1,541 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,541
- across all upheld claims
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.