Case 6022805/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Daniel Smith 1st v Platform Property Care Ltd 2nd Respondent: Platform Housing Group Ltd PUBLIC PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 6022805/2024
- Decision date
- 27 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jonathan Gidney
- Venue
- Midlands West
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Daniel Smith 1st
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Jonathan Gidney, the Tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim under s98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996 against both respondents.
The Tribunal also dismissed the claimant's claim of detriment for making a public interest disclosure under s47B Employment Rights Act 1996 and his disability discrimination claim under s6 Equality Act 2010 against both respondents. The written record states that reasons were given orally and that written reasons would only be provided if requested, so no further findings or remedy details are available in the text.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The written record states that the unfair dismissal claim under s98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed. Reasons were given orally and are not included in the text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The written record states that the claim of detriment for making a public interest disclosure under s47B Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed. Reasons were given orally and are not included in the text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The written record states that the disability discrimination claim under s6 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed. Reasons were given orally and are not included in the text. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s6 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.