Case 3304873/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Malik v Intercontinental Hotels Group Holiday Inn Hemel Hempstead and 4 others — 2021
- Case reference
- 3304873/2020
- Decision date
- 8 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
6 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Watford Employment Tribunal on 8 November 2021 before Employment Judge Quill sitting alone. The claimant, Mr M Malik, appeared in person. The first, second and fifth respondents were represented by Ms J Clarke, solicitor, and the third and fourth respondents were represented by Mr P Singh, solicitor.
The written judgment states that all the claims against all the respondents were struck out. No separate findings on liability, credibility, remedy, or compensation are set out in the short written record.
The record also states that the reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless a party requested them within 14 days of the written record being sent. On the material available in the extracted text, no further substantive reasons for the strike out are recorded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The written judgment records only that all claims against all respondents were struck out. The specific claim label is taken from the gov.uk case listing category rather than the short judgment text. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The written judgment records only that all claims against all respondents were struck out. The specific claim label is taken from the gov.uk case listing category rather than the short judgment text. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Sex discrimination | The written judgment records only that all claims against all respondents were struck out. The specific claim label is taken from the gov.uk case listing category rather than the short judgment text. | Struck out | Sex | — |
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.