Case 2217116/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K. Maloney v AAAtraq Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2217116/2023
- Decision date
- 14 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr G.
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K. Maloney
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge G King found that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim succeeded on procedural grounds, but that he would have been dismissed in any event two weeks later, limiting any compensation accordingly. The harassment claim relating to race succeeded only in respect of a single text message that the claimant later became aware of, likely attracting a lower Vento band injury to feelings award.
The Tribunal dismissed the claims of direct race discrimination, direct age discrimination, harassment related to age, and unlawful deductions from wages. References to 'junior' were found to relate to the role rather than to age, and deductions from the claimant's final payslip arising from the inclusion and then deduction of a £6,000 commission advance were statutory deductions for tax, National Insurance and student loan repayments.
The Tribunal indicated that remedy should be capable of agreement between the parties without a further hearing. PDF text was truncated; some intermediate findings were not fully visible.
Claims and outcomes
6 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal succeeds on procedural grounds. Tribunal found claimant would have been dismissed in any event two weeks later; remedy to be agreed by parties or determined at a separate remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim under s.13 Equality Act 2010 not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment relating to race under s.26 Equality Act 2010 succeeds in part - one element relating to a single text message about which the claimant became aware later; likely lower Vento band award for injury to feelings. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Age discrimination | Direct age discrimination dismissed; Tribunal found references to 'junior' related to the role not the claimant's age. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to age dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unlawful deductions claim fails; deductions from final payslip relating to a £6,000 'commission advance' were authorised by statute (tax, NI, student loan). |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- Vento bands
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.