Case 3330861/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Mr M Angelov v Marston (Holdings) Limited — 2020

Case reference: 3330861/2018
Decision date: 15 April 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Anstis
Venue: Reading
Panel members: Mrs A E Brown, Ms H T Edwards

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr M Angelov

Respondent

Marston (Holdings) Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mr M Angelov was employed by Marston Group Limited as an arrest officer from 21 August 2017 until his dismissal on 1 February 2018. The tribunal found that complaints about his work began early in his employment and that, although he disputed fault, the respondent regarded his approach as overzealous and inconsistent with the way the role was to be performed. The respondent moved him temporarily to Investigation Agent work, extended probation, and arranged retraining and supervised work with colleagues before deciding to end his employment.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Claim pleaded as automatic unfair dismissal under s103A ERA 1996. The tribunal accepted that one part of the alleged disclosure on 1 February 2018 was a protected disclosure, but found it was not the reason or principal reason for dismissal.	Dismissed	—	—
Race discrimination	Claim pleaded as direct race discrimination based on race or ethnic origin being described as eastern European / from another country. The tribunal found no evidence that the complaints or dismissal were due to race or national origin.	Dismissed	Race	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.