Akhonzada v Iweida [2007] NIIT 385_06IT (28 December 2007)

Akhonzada v Iweida [2007] NIIT 385_06IT (28 December 2007)

The tribunal found that the claimant was victimised by the third respondent, as he was not appointed to the director position because he was suspected of assisting his wife in her discrimination claims, constituting less favourable treatment for a protected act under both the SDO and RRO. The respondent's explanation was found untruthful and inadequate. The tribunal awarded compensation for actual and future loss, injury to feelings, and interest.

Citation
[2007] NIIT 385_06IT
Parties
Claimant: Nasir Ali Akhonzada; Respondent: Jamal Iweida; Respondent: Dr Ahmed Bouridane; Respondent: The Trustees for the time being of the Belfast Islamic Centre
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
28 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim upheld against the third respondent; first and second respondents dismissed as parties.
Legal Topics
Victimisation, Sex Discrimination, Race Discrimination, Recruitment, Burden of Proof
Employment Law Equality Law Victimisation Sex Discrimination Race Discrimination Recruitment Burden of Proof

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nasir Ali Akhonzada

Claimant

Jamal Iweida

Respondent

Dr Ahmed Bouridane

Respondent

The Trustees for the time being of the Belfast Islamic Centre

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent victimised the claimant contrary to Article 6 of the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 and Article 4 of the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 in the arrangements for and failure to appoint him to the position of director.
  2. 2 Whether the complaint of victimisation under the Sex Discrimination Order was properly before the tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found that the claimant was victimised by the third respondent, as he was not appointed to the director position because he was suspected of assisting his wife in her discrimination claims, constituting less favourable treatment for a protected act under both the SDO and RRO. The respondent's explanation was found untruthful and inadequate. The tribunal awarded compensation for actual and future loss, injury to feelings, and interest.

Court Disposition

Claim upheld against the third respondent; first and second respondents dismissed as parties.

Orders

  • The third named respondent is found to have victimised the claimant contrary to the SDO and RRO.
  • The third named respondent is ordered to pay the claimant £13,155.00 by way of compensation.