Case 6003271/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Akhtar v Cleartech Communications Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6003271/2024
- Decision date
- 26 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mr G Pennie, Mr P Dobson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Akhtar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal unanimously found that the claimant's complaint of discrimination arising from disability was well founded. It ordered the respondent to pay compensation of GBP 5000 plus interest of GBP 608 for injury to feelings for that successful complaint.
The Tribunal also found that the complaints of direct disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments were not well founded. The written judgment records that reasons were given orally and that written reasons would only be provided if requested, so the written record does not set out the factual reasoning or legal analysis.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of discrimination arising from disability was well founded and awards compensation of GBP 5000 plus GBP 608 interest for injury to feelings for the successful complaint. | Upheld | Disability | £5,608 |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of direct disability discrimination was not well founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments was not well founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,608
- across all upheld claims
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.