Case 2410908/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs N Razaq v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council — 2025
- Case reference
- 2410908/2023
- Decision date
- 26 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eeley
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mr A Egerton, Mr A Gill
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs N Razaq
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Manchester Employment Tribunal from 7 to 11 July 2025 before Employment Judge Eeley, sitting with Mr A Egerton and Mr A Gill. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Miss L Quigley, counsel. The published record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested in accordance with the note appended to the judgment.
The unanimous judgment was that the claimant’s complaint of harassment related to disability was not well founded and was dismissed. The claimant’s complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments in relation to car park arrangements was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. The remainder of the claimant’s complaints of breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments were also found not well founded and dismissed. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability was found not well founded and dismissed by the unanimous tribunal. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments in relation to car park arrangements was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant, and the remainder of the reasonable adjustments complaints were found not well founded and dismissed. | Other | Disability | — |
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.