Case 6035262/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Datta v 1) Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria Sociedad Anónima 2) Mr Gianluca Passaretta — 2025
- Case reference
- 6035262/2025
- Decision date
- 12 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Iman Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Datta
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant applied for interim relief on the basis that the reason or principal reason for his dismissal was that he had made protected disclosures. The Respondents disputed that protected disclosures had been made and contended that the dismissal related to restructuring, performance issues and a breakdown in the professional relationship.
The Tribunal treated the hearing as a summary assessment on limited and untested evidence. It found that there were significant factual disputes, including whether disclosures were made and whether there were genuine performance issues, which would need to be tested at a final hearing.
The Tribunal concluded that the Claimant had not shown a "pretty good" chance of succeeding at final hearing, applying the higher interim relief threshold. The application for interim relief was therefore dismissed, without determining the final claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal dismissed the Claimant's application for interim relief under sections 128 and 129 ERA 1996. It did not determine the final whistleblowing dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- section 128(1)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 129 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 43B Employment Rights Act 1996
- Taplin v C Shippam Ltd [1978] ICR 1068
- Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz (UKEAT/0578/10/ZT)
- Parsons v Airplus International Ltd (UKEAT/0023/16/JOJ)
- "pretty good" chance of succeeding
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.