Case 2205837/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Akagawa v The 29 Principles — 2023
- Case reference
- 2205837/2022
- Decision date
- 23 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leonard-Johnston
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Akagawa
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that it did not have territorial jurisdiction to hear Miss Akagawa’s claim for automatic unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996. It also held that it did not have territorial jurisdiction to hear her protected disclosure claim and her disability discrimination claim under the Equality Act 2010.
All claims were dismissed. The written record states that reasons had been given orally at the hearing, but no written reasons are provided in the record supplied here.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that it did not have territorial jurisdiction to hear the Claimant’s automatic unfair dismissal claim under the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal held that it did not have territorial jurisdiction to hear the Claimant’s protected disclosure claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held that it did not have territorial jurisdiction to hear the Claimant’s disability discrimination claim under the Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.