Case 3205500/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Anthony Bakare v Aspers Casino Westfield Stratford City Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3205500/2022
- Decision date
- 7 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mack Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mrs C Clover, Mrs G Forrest
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Anthony Bakare
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at East London Hearing Centre before Employment Judge Mack with Mrs C Clover and Mrs G Forrest as members, heard the case on 26, 27 and 28 July 2023. It found that Mr Anthony Bakare’s complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded and that the respondent unfairly dismissed him.
The tribunal also found that Aspers Casino Westfield Stratford City Limited was in breach of contract because it dismissed the claimant without notice. The judgment records a single monetary award of £10,831.25, but it does not split that sum between the unfair dismissal and breach of contract findings.
Mr Bakare’s complaints of direct race discrimination and direct age discrimination were each found not well founded and were dismissed. The judgment does not set out any separate remedy for those claims.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the complaint well-founded and held that the respondent unfairly dismissed the claimant. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent was in breach of contract by dismissing the claimant without notice. | Upheld | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The complaint of direct race discrimination was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Age discrimination | The complaint of direct age discrimination was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,831
- 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.