Case 2218003/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Jose Plata Martinez v Midasplayer.com Limited and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 2218003/2024
- Decision date
- 22 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkin
- Panel members
- Mr P Secher, Ms L Jones
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Jose Plata Martinez
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that none of the alleged protected disclosures satisfied each element of the statutory definition in section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The complaints of protected disclosure detriment and automatic unfair dismissal therefore did not succeed.
The Tribunal found that five alleged protected acts were established for the purposes of section 27(2)(d) of the Equality Act 2010, but it did not find that any of the six alleged detriments were because of a protected act. The Tribunal accepted evidence that the Second Respondent had been contemplating dismissal for poor performance and considered the Claimant's role for redundancy before being aware of the relevant internal complaints.
All claims before the Tribunal were dismissed, and no remedy hearing was necessary.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal pursuant to section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Protected disclosure detriment contrary to section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation under section 27 Equality Act 2010 was not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 43B Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- section 27(2)(d) 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.