Case 6015812/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Malak v Currys plc — 2025
- Case reference
- 6015812/2024
- Decision date
- 3 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clark
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedMr W Malak
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Clark, sitting alone at Nottingham on 3 April 2025, determined this matter in the absence of the respondent (Currys PLC), which had failed to enter a response and made no application to participate. The claimant Mr W Malak appeared in person.
The Tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim succeeded, with a basic award of £10,192.20 and a compensatory award of £500. The disability discrimination claims also succeeded, with damages awarded for injury to feelings of £18,493.42 (including £993.42 of statutory interest at 8% from 18 July 2024 to 3 April 2025) and financial loss of £4,860.25 (including £134.65 of statutory interest at 8% from the midpoint of the relevant period to the date of judgment).
As the total taxable damages and compensation of £34,045.87 exceeded the £30,000 tax-free limit, the £4,045.87 balance was grossed up at the claimant's marginal tax rate of 20% to £5,057.34. The total payable was £35,057.34. Recoupment provisions did not apply as no award was made under section 111 ERA 1996 for a prescribed element. Reasons were given orally.
Claims and outcomes
2 claims adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Upheld | — | £10,692 |
| Disability discrimination | Upheld | Disability | £23,354 |
Legal tests applied
1 referenceRemedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £35,057
- Basic award
- £10,192
- Compensatory award
- £500
Source document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.