Case 2200765/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Martyn Diamond Black v Alain Charles Publishing Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2200765/2021
- Decision date
- 30 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge David Hughes
- Panel members
- Mr Philip Madelin, Mr Samuel Pearlman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Martyn Diamond Black
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Martyn Diamond Black, worked for Alain Charles Publishing Ltd from 26 February 2018 until 1 October 2020. On 20 August 2020 he sent Nick Fordham a 31-page report about alleged wrongdoing in the Indian office, including alleged harassment, sexual harassment and racism in recruitment. The tribunal found that the report contained sufficient factual content to amount to information tending to show breaches of legal obligations, and that the claimant honestly and reasonably believed the information tended to show such breaches and that disclosure was in the public interest.
The tribunal preferred the claimant's evidence on the aftermath of the report. It found that the respondent did not genuinely investigate the allegations: Ms Orr's note of the 27 August 2020 call was materially inaccurate, the claimant was not told of the decision not to suspend Ms Subramanian, and the contents of the report were leaked. It also found that the claimant was marginalised after the report, including exclusion from meetings, diversion of tasks, instructions to others not to speak to him, and remarks said to have been made about him. The tribunal held that these matters occurred because he had made the protected disclosure, and that the conduct formed a continuing course so the limitation point did not bar the claims.
On dismissal, the tribunal held that the marginalisation, the leak and the failure properly to investigate amounted to fundamental breaches of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. It found that the claimant resigned primarily because the report had been leaked, that he did not affirm the contract, and that he was entitled to resign without notice. The dismissal was held to be automatically unfair because the protected disclosure was the sole reason for it, and the wrongful dismissal claim also succeeded.
The victimisation claim succeeded on the same factual matrix. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had done a protected act by making allegations of sex discrimination and racist recruitment practices, and that those allegations were made in good faith. Remedy was not determined in this judgment; the tribunal directed that compensation would be dealt with at a later CVP hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Protected disclosure detriment claim under s47B ERA 1996. The tribunal held that the report of 20 August 2020 was a protected disclosure, that the report's contents were leaked, and that the claimant was marginalised because he made that disclosure. It did not treat the failure to suspend or properly investigate as the detriment itself. | Upheld | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal was upheld under ss103A and 98 ERA 1996. The tribunal found a fundamental breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, held that the claimant resigned primarily because the report had been leaked, and found that the protected disclosure was the sole reason for the dismissal. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The wrongful dismissal claim succeeded because the tribunal found fundamental breaches of contract that entitled the claimant to resign without working notice. | Upheld | — | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation under s27 Equality Act 2010 was upheld on the same detriments. The tribunal accepted that the report included allegations of sex discrimination and racism in recruitment, that those allegations were made in good faith, and that the respondent subjected the claimant to detriments because he had done the protected act. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s43B ERA 1996
- s47B ERA 1996
- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth
- Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohammed
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the RUC
- s103A ERA 1996
- s98 ERA 1996
- s27 Equality Act 2010
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.