Claimant v Brake Bros Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal dismissed the claim for direct discrimination. The claimant appeared in person against a represented respondent but was unable to establish that he had been treated less favourably because of a protected characteristic.
The tribunal dismissed the victimisation claim. The claimant could not establish that he had been subjected to a detriment because he had done a protected act under the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal dismissed the claim for unpaid wages. The claimant was unable to prove that the respondent had made an unlawful deduction from his wages or failed to pay wages properly due.
Facts
Mr Maluka brought claims against Brake Bros Limited for direct discrimination, victimisation, and unpaid wages. He represented himself at a four-day hearing before a full tribunal panel. The respondent was represented by counsel. The judgment provides no detailed reasoning for the dismissal of the claims.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all three claims brought by the claimant. The claims for direct discrimination, victimisation, and unpaid wages all failed. No awards were made.
Practical note
A self-represented claimant faced significant challenges in proving discrimination, victimisation and wages claims against a respondent represented by counsel, resulting in complete dismissal of all claims.
Case details
- Case number
- 1302955/2024
- Decision date
- 19 May 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- logistics
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No