Case 2301194/2020 · Employment Tribunal
D Dimov v Mr Gurhan Mustafa T/A Mambocino / Riverside Fish and Steakhouse and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301194/2020
- Decision date
- 12 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Burge
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- N O'Hare, H Bharadia
Parties
3 namedClaimant
D Dimov
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr Dimov, a Bulgarian national who arrived in England in 2016 with little English and no family, started work at Mambocino in August 2016 and later worked evenings at Riverside. It held that Mr Mustafa was his employer, that there was no contract or Mambocino payslips, and that Mr Dimov was vulnerable because he did not know his rights or what his pay should have been.
On pay and holiday, the tribunal found that from 12 October 2017, after a five-week break, he worked seven days a week and was paid cash in hand below the National Minimum Wage. The reasons include a period-by-period table of what he was paid and what he should have been paid, and the tribunal held that the first respondent unlawfully deducted wages. It also found that he was never encouraged to take paid annual leave and never paid holiday, so the Working Time Regulations claim succeeded and the entitlement carried over until termination on 4 November 2019. The reasons record liability and entitlement but do not set out a final quantified award.
On race harassment, the tribunal rejected the alleged first assault and the alleged head-butt by Ms Joinaitis, but accepted a December 2017 incident in which Mr Mustafa pushed Mr Dimov into a hallway and an April or May 2019 incident in which he grabbed him by the throat, as well as repeated verbal abuse using words such as idiot, animal, pig, donkey, cow and gypsy. It held that this treatment was unwanted, humiliating and related to the claimant's Bulgarian nationality/race, both because his vulnerability as a recent non-English-speaking arrival was intrinsically connected to that characteristic and because the respondent failed to explain the treatment on any other basis. The direct discrimination claim was dismissed because the same conduct had already been found to amount to harassment, and the tribunal held the discrimination claim was in time as conduct extending over a period.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the first respondent failed to pay the claimant in accordance with the National Minimum Wage from 12 October 2017 onwards and therefore unlawfully deducted his wages. The reasons set out a period-by-period comparison of pay and NMW, but no final quantified award is recorded in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the claimant was not encouraged to take paid annual leave and was never paid holiday. It held that the right to paid leave carried over throughout the period from 12 October 2017 to 4 November 2019, but the reasons do not set out a final monetary figure. | Upheld | — | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal accepted repeated verbal abuse and two physical incidents, found that the conduct related to the claimant's Bulgarian nationality/race, and held that the respondents had not shown the treatment was unrelated to that characteristic. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal dismissed the direct discrimination claim because the same conduct had already been found to amount to harassment, and it held that conduct amounting to harassment could not also be pursued as detriment-based direct race discrimination on the same facts. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
18 references- s.136 EqA burden of proof
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Madarassy
- Royal Mail Group Ltd v Efobi
- s.13 EqA direct discrimination
- s.26 EqA harassment
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- Hartley v Foreign and Commonwealth Office Services
- Warby v Wunda Group plc
- Tees Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust v Aslam
- Hendricks v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
- Aziz v FDA
- s.23 ERA 1996
- Deduction from Wages (Limitation) Regulations 2014
- Regulations 13, 16, 30 and 30B WTR 1998
- King v Sash Window Workshop
- Smith v Pimlico Plumbers Limited
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.