Case 2408910/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Akbar v Virtus Law Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2408910/2020
- Decision date
- 9 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Whittaker
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mrs C Linney, Mr Stemp
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Akbar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard seven live claims from the claimant's schedule; claims 3, 4 and 10 were treated as narrative only and not separate claims. The claimant insisted that the case be considered under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010, alleging direct discrimination on the grounds of race and religion. The tribunal therefore asked whether each allegation involved less favourable treatment and, if so, whether the reason was race or religion.
Claims 1, 2 and 5 were all dismissed. The tribunal accepted that the relevant comments were made, but found that they arose in the context of general office discussion among several staff members, not as comments directed only to the claimant. On that basis there was no less favourable treatment, and the tribunal was not satisfied that the comments were made because of race or religion. Claim 6, the allegation that Mr Morley stole the claimant's car keys, was rejected because there was no evidence to support it.
Claim 8, the alleged comment that "Sean is always in the right", also failed. The tribunal could not link it to the Korean remark on which the claimant relied, and found no evidence that it amounted to less favourable treatment or was motivated by either protected characteristic. Claim 9, the WhatsApp image sent by the owner, was dismissed because it was sent to all employees, was not directed at the claimant, and was not found to be motivated by race or religion.
Claim 7 succeeded in part. The tribunal accepted the claimant's account that Mr Morley made the Korean comment at the time of the award presentation and found, on the evidence as a whole, that it was said to the claimant alone. It concluded that the reason was the claimant's Pakistani heritage, so the race complaint succeeded, but the religion element did not. The tribunal awarded £1,000 for injury to feelings and interest of £155 from 19 November 2019 to 27 October 2021 at 8%, making a total award of £1,155.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal accepted that the comment was made, but found it was part of general office discussion involving several staff members rather than less favourable treatment directed only at the claimant. It also found no evidence that the comment was made because of race or religion. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal accepted that the comment was made, but found it was made in the context of general office discussion and not only to the claimant. It held that there was no less favourable treatment and no connection to race or religion. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal accepted that the comment was made, but found it was part of office discussion and was not directed only to the claimant. It concluded that there was no less favourable treatment and no discriminatory reason based on race or religion. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Other | The claimant alleged that Mr Morley stole his car keys. The tribunal found no evidence to substantiate the allegation and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal found that Mr Morley made the Korean comment to the claimant at the award presentation and that it was a private comment directed only at him. It held that the reason was the claimant's Pakistani heritage, so the race element succeeded, but the religion element failed. Injury to feelings was assessed at £1,000. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,155
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.23 Equality Act 2010
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.