Case 2200346/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Akerele v ICTS (UK) Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2200346/2020
- Decision date
- 29 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Grewal
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Ms H Ewing, Ms S Plummer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Akerele
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal gave a unanimous judgment following a hearing at London Central on 29 September 2020. It found that the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal under section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well-founded.
The Tribunal also stated that it did not have jurisdiction to consider a complaint of unfair dismissal under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The complaints of race discrimination were not well-founded. The judgment records that oral reasons were given at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested within the stated time limit.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of unfair dismissal under section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was found not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal stated that it did not have jurisdiction to consider a complaint of unfair dismissal under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Other | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The complaints of race discrimination were found not well-founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98 of the 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.