Case 6010136/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A U Akali v Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust — 2026
- Case reference
- 6010136/2024
- Decision date
- 14 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Miller Representation
- Venue
- Hull
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A U Akali
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held that Mr A U Akali's complaint of unfair dismissal against Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust was well-founded and that he was unfairly dismissed.
The Tribunal found that Mr Akali caused or contributed to the dismissal by blameworthy conduct. It considered it just and equitable to reduce the compensatory award by 100%. It also considered it just and equitable to reduce the basic award by 100% because of his conduct before the dismissal. No monetary figures were recorded in the judgment.
The complaint of breach of contract relating to notice pay was not well-founded and was dismissed. The judgment records that reasons were given orally and does not set out further reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The compensatory and basic awards were each reduced by 100%; no monetary figures were recorded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract complaint concerned notice pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- compensatory remedy recorded
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.