Case 6001367/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Z Mehboob v MN Lyceom Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6001367/2023
- Decision date
- 23 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shepherd Members
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- Ms Arshad-Mather, Mr Pearse
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Z Mehboob
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe unanimous tribunal, sitting at Leeds by CVP on 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 May 2025, heard evidence through an interpreter and with the claimant represented by his wife and the respondent represented by an advocate. Employment Judge Shepherd sat with Ms Arshad-Mather and Mr Pearse as members.
The written judgment records that all three claims were dismissed. The claim of unfair dismissal was found to be not well-founded, the claim of disability discrimination was found to be not well-founded, and the claim for entitlement to statutory redundancy pay was also found to be not well-founded.
No monetary award is recorded in the written judgment. The record also states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons will not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note at the end of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal said the unfair dismissal claim was not well-founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal said the disability discrimination claim was not well-founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal said the claim to statutory redundancy pay was not well-founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.