Case 2600468/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Iqbal v CBVC Vehicle Management Limited and 1 other — 2026
- Case reference
- 2600468/2024
- Decision date
- 6 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brewer Representation
- Venue
- Midlands East
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr M Iqbal
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Iqbal pursued claims of direct race discrimination and harassment related to race arising from a comment made by Mr Andrew Baker on 4 October 2021. During a conversation about whether a Scottish £20 note would be accepted locally, Mr Baker used the term “Paki shop”. The tribunal found that the comment was conversational, was not about or directed at Mr Iqbal, and was made without an intention to offend.
Mr Baker apologised directly to Mr Iqbal on the same day and emailed a general apology to staff the following day. Mr Iqbal did not complain about the comment until he raised a grievance and resigned on 7 June 2023, approximately 21 months later. The tribunal also found that Mr Iqbal and Mr Baker maintained a courteous and professional working relationship after the incident and that Mr Iqbal had no sickness absence related to it.
The tribunal did not find persuasive the medical report commissioned for the litigation, which was dated almost four years after the incident and relied on Mr Iqbal’s self-report. It found a disjuncture between what he reportedly told the clinician, his evidence, and the contemporaneous facts, and did not find him to be a credible witness. It concluded that the one-off comment did not amount to less favourable treatment of Mr Iqbal and therefore dismissed the direct race discrimination claim.
Applying section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 and the subjective and objective elements of the harassment test, the tribunal found that Mr Iqbal had not shown that the comment violated his dignity or created an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The harassment claim was dismissed. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010 direct discrimination test
- Shamoon comparator test
- section 136 Equality Act 2010 burden of proof
- Igen Ltd v Wong and Madarassy v Nomura burden of proof guidance
- section 26 Equality Act 2010 harassment test
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal harassment principles
- Pemberton v Inwood subjective and objective effects test
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.