Case 2304094/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Anthony-Akah v Sequence UK Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2304094/2018
- Decision date
- 2 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heath
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Ms N Beeston, Mr C Wilby
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Anthony-Akah
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at London South on 30 and 31 May and 1 and 2 June 2023 before Employment Judge Heath, with Ms N Beeston and Mr C Wilby as the lay members. The claimant did not attend. The tribunal heard evidence from the respondent only.
The tribunal held that the claimant's claims of constructive unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination, and breach of contract were not well-founded and dismissed them. The breach of contract claim was identified in the judgment as a claim for a £10,000 bonus payment.
The respondent's counterclaim was found well-founded. The judgment records that the claimant was ordered to pay the respondent £17,727.86.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment describes this as a claim of constructive unfair dismissal; it was found not well-founded and dismissed on the claimant's non-attendance. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claim concerned a £10,000 bonus payment and was dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Respondent's counterclaim was found well-founded and the claimant was ordered to pay £17,727.86. | Upheld | — | £17,728 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £17,728
- across all upheld claims
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.