Case 6013563/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Igweike v Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency — 2026
- Case reference
- 6013563/2024
- Decision date
- 5 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Representation
- Venue
- Swansea
- Panel members
- Mr M Lewis, Miss H Mason
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Igweike
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal unanimously found that Mr I Igweike’s complaints of direct race discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability were not well-founded and dismissed them. It also dismissed as not well-founded the complaint of harassment related to race and/or disability and the complaint of victimisation.
The complaint that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency failed to permit a right to be accompanied under section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 was also not well-founded and was dismissed. The claim was dismissed in its entirety, and no monetary award was recorded. Reasons were given orally at the hearing; this written judgment records the outcomes but does not set out the underlying factual findings or reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The complaint was direct race discrimination. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint concerned failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The judgment describes a single harassment complaint related to race and/or disability, so no single protected characteristic is assigned. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Failure to permit the right to be accompanied pursuant to section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999
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.