Case 2600898/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. Q Iqbal Mr. M R Tariq Mr. A Iqbal Mr. I Iqbal Mr. I Ghous v Cordant Security Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2600898/2018
- Decision date
- 4 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heap Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. Q Iqbal Mr. M R Tariq Mr. A Iqbal Mr. I Iqbal Mr. I Ghous
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was issued under rule 52 following withdrawal. It records that each of the named claimants withdrew their claims against Cordant Security Ltd.
The proceedings were dismissed following those withdrawals. The judgment contains no findings on the merits of the claims and makes no award of compensation or other remedy.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claims by each claimant; it does not give merits findings. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim type taken from the listing categories; the judgment itself records only withdrawal of the claims. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Claim type taken from the listing categories; the judgment itself records only withdrawal of the claims. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Claim type taken from the listing categories; the judgment itself records only withdrawal of the claims. | Withdrawn | Religion or belief | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim type taken from the listing categories; the judgment itself records only withdrawal of the claims. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Claim type taken from the listing categories; the judgment itself records only withdrawal of the claims. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.