Case 2402500/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr MD Malu Malu v Matalan Retail Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2402500/2020
- Decision date
- 18 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Ms S Khan, Mr J Flynn
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr MD Malu Malu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Manchester Employment Tribunal, before Employment Judge Dunlop with Ms S Khan and Mr J Flynn, the claimant Mr MD Malu Malu brought claims against Matalan Retail Limited for direct discrimination on grounds of race, harassment on grounds of race, and victimisation. The judgment records that those claims were not well-founded and that the claimant’s case was dismissed in its entirety.
The published decision does not set out written reasons because the tribunal states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons would not be provided unless requested. The respondent’s application for a costs order under Rules 74-84 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 succeeded, and the claimant was ordered to pay the respondent £1,600.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,600
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.