Case 6020924/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Mazur Iqbal v Manchester City Council — 2026
- Case reference
- 6020924/2024
- Decision date
- 29 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Tobin Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Mazur Iqbal
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr Mazur Iqbal was a disabled person under section 6 and schedule 1 Equality Act 2010. It upheld his reasonable adjustments claim, finding that Manchester City Council failed in its duty under sections 20 and 21 of that Act. The judgment does not set out the underlying facts or reasons for these findings.
The tribunal found that Mr Iqbal was not constructively unfairly dismissed under section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996. It listed the case for a remedy hearing on 24 August 2026. No monetary award was recorded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The respondent failed in its duty to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010. Remedy was reserved for a hearing on 24 August 2026. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was not constructively unfairly dismissed under section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Section 6 and schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- Sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010
- Section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.