Case 3201281/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Imran Siddique v London Domestic Appliances (UK) Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3201281/2023
- Decision date
- 24 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Elgot Members
- Panel members
- Ms M Legg, Mr P Lush
Parties
2 namedMr Imran Siddique
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting as Employment Judge B Elgot with members Ms M Legg and Mr P Lush, gave unanimous judgment after a final hearing across nine days. The claimant's monetary claims were upheld: accrued holiday pay of £1,976.96, one week's notice pay of £458.77, and unlawful deductions in part for unlawfully deducted speeding/parking fines and tolls (£719.94) and unpaid travel time of 138 hours at £12 per hour plus £50 travel costs (£1,706). All three disability discrimination claims were dismissed. The s.13 direct discrimination and s.20 reasonable adjustments claims were not made out. The s.15 claim succeeded on the unfavourable treatment limb (the claimant was dismissed because of something arising from his OCD), but the respondent established a justification defence: dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims of reasonable management of the business and protecting workforce, customers and the public from the claimant's conduct. The tribunal also made a Preparation Time Order of £360 (8 hours at £45) against the respondent for unreasonable conduct of proceedings and breach of tribunal orders. Total payable £5,221.67.
Claims and outcomes
4 claims adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Upheld | — | £1,977 |
| Breach of contract | Upheld | — | £459 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Upheld | — | £2,426 |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
5 referencesRemedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,222
Source document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.