Case 2304847/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Atta Kwakwa v Ketra Logistics Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2304847/2019
- Decision date
- 28 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Atta Kwakwa
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt London South Employment Tribunal on 28 October 2020, Employment Judge Martin gave judgment in the claim brought by Mr Atta Kwakwa against Ketra Logistics Limited. The tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay the Claimant £800 in relation to a bonus.
The judgment also records that the Claimant withdrew his claim relating to a 3% pay rise, and that his claim for notice pay was dismissed. The judgment states that reasons were given at the end of the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in writing within 14 days.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment orders the Respondent to pay £800 in relation to a bonus. The judgment does not identify a more specific legal label for this claim. | Upheld | — | £800 |
| Other | The Claimant withdrew his claim relating to a pay rise of 3%. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | The Claimant's claim for notice pay was dismissed. The judgment does not specify a more detailed legal category for the notice pay claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £800
- 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.