Case 2407695/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D S Alam v Manchester Airport plc — 2025
- Case reference
- 2407695/2023
- Decision date
- 22 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mr T D Wilson, Mr S Carter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D S Alam
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting as a full panel at Manchester from 1-3 April 2025, considered Mr Alam's claim against Manchester Airport Plc. Although the claim had not been presented within the applicable primary time limit, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to extend time on the just and equitable basis and accordingly had jurisdiction to determine the complaint.
The unanimous judgment was that the complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability was well-founded and succeeded. The judgment as recorded does not set out the substantive reasoning, as reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons would only follow on request.
The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £15,411.92 as compensation for past financial loss, £1,332.60 as interest on that sum, £9,000 as compensation for injury to feelings, and £1,556.38 as interest on the injury to feelings award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability; tribunal found it well-founded. Claim was out of time on the primary limit but admitted on just and equitable grounds. Remedy amount is the sum of all four awarded components (past financial loss, interest on past loss, injury to feelings, interest on injury to feelings). | Upheld | Disability | £27,301 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £27,301
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £15,412
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.