Case 3302999/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Iqbal v LHR Airports Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3302999/2023
- Decision date
- 28 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Members
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Ms J Stewart, Mrs C Tufts
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Iqbal
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr C Iqbal brought disability discrimination complaints against LHR Airports Limited. The case was heard at Reading on 27, 28, 29 and 30 January 2025 before Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto, with Ms J Stewart and Mrs C Tufts sitting as members.
The tribunal recorded in its judgment that the claimant's complaints about disability discrimination were not well founded and were dismissed. The written record does not set out the tribunal's factual findings or legal reasoning beyond that outcome.
The judgment notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note on the decision. No monetary remedy was awarded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant's complaints about disability discrimination were not well founded and were dismissed. No separate findings, sub-issues, or remedy were set out in the written record. | Dismissed | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.