Case 2302091/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Mughal v Croner-i Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2302091/2023
- Decision date
- 26 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tsamados Members
- Panel members
- Mr M Marenda, Mr T Harrington-Roberts
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Mughal
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal unanimously found that the complaints of discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments were well-founded. The written judgment records the outcomes but states that reasons were given orally, so it does not set out the underlying factual findings.
The Tribunal also found that the respondent failed to deal with the claimant's flexible working request in a reasonable manner and based on incorrect facts. The complaint of automatic unfair dismissal for making a flexible working request was not well-founded and was dismissed.
No remedy was awarded in this judgment. A one-day remedy hearing was to be listed if the parties informed the Tribunal by 9 April 2025 that such a hearing was required.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of discrimination arising from disability was well-founded. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments was well-founded. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Flexible working | The complaint of failure to deal with the flexible working request in a reasonable manner and based on incorrect facts was well-founded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of automatic unfair dismissal for making a flexible working request was not well-founded and was dismissed. | 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.