Case 2301422/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Dillan Akers v Ace Crew Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2301422/2019
- Decision date
- 2 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self
- Panel members
- Mrs S Dengate, Mrs J Saunders
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Dillan Akers
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at London South by CVP before Employment Judge Self, with Mrs S Dengate and Mrs J Saunders as the lay members. The judgment records the final disposal of the claims brought by Mr Dillan Akers against Ace Crew Limited after the hearing on 26-30 July and 1 August 2021.
Mr Akers' redundancy payment claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. The tribunal also recorded that the unfair dismissal and automatically unfair dismissal claims were not well-founded and were dismissed.
The remaining claims of protected disclosure detriment, victimisation and sex discrimination were also found not well-founded and dismissed. The wrongful dismissal claim was likewise dismissed. The extracted judgment records no monetary award or separate remedy findings.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal dismissed the redundancy payment claim upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The dismissal paragraph covers the unfair dismissal and automatically unfair dismissal claims, both found not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Recorded as a protected disclosure detriment claim and dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.