Case 2203867/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Malkov v Ten Lifestyle Management Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2203867/2020
- Decision date
- 15 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Malkov
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claims brought by Mr R Direglas, Ms A Khomutova and Mr A Malkov against Ten Lifestyle Management Ltd were heard remotely by Employment Judge P Klimov sitting alone on 14 and 15 December 2021. The tribunal dealt with five claims in total: automatic unfair dismissal, breach of Regulation 6 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, victimisation, direct race discrimination, and unfair dismissal.
Claims and outcomes
5 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 | The judgment records that the automatic unfair dismissal claim under ss.104(C) and 105(7)(BA) ERA 1996 was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The claim was for breach of Regulation 6 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment records the victimisation claim as dismissed on withdrawal; the protected characteristic is not specified in the extracted text. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The direct race discrimination claim was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The ordinary unfair dismissal claim failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.