Case 1401702/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs W Donnelly v The Guildhall Poole Limited RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 1401702/2024
- Decision date
- 28 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs W Donnelly
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing judgment in which the tribunal dismissed all three of the Claimant's claims. The tribunal accepted that some of the conduct complained of (notably an exaggerated allegation by Mr Kiss concerning underage drinking and Mr Saunders' conduct towards the Claimant in December 2023) did amount to harassment, and that it would be just and equitable to extend time for those matters. However, the sex harassment claims were dismissed because the tribunal was satisfied that the conduct was not related to the Claimant's gender; the tribunal found the reasons related to perceived personality, character and fit with a fine-dining environment rather than sex.
On whistleblowing, the tribunal accepted that the Claimant made a protected disclosure on 1 February 2024 concerning the owner's handling of service-charge tips, which the Claimant believed breached the Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023. However, the automatically unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996 was dismissed because the tribunal found that the decision the Claimant was not suitable had been taken before any disclosure was made and that the disclosure had no bearing on the dismissal. The detriment claims under s.47B ERA 1996 were also dismissed, with the tribunal finding that the underlying decisions had already been made before the disclosure and that one of the alleged detriments did not in fact involve false allegations.
The judgment was given by Employment Judge Self sitting alone at Southampton, with the Claimant represented by Mr M Faure (Solicitor) and the Respondent by Mr O Foy (Counsel). No remedy was awarded as all claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Harassment related to sex under s.26 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found that certain conduct (Mr Kiss' exaggerated underage-drinking allegation and Mr Saunders' conduct in December) did amount to harassment, but dismissed the claims on the basis that the conduct was not related to the Claimant's sex/gender. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Whistleblowing | Automatically unfair dismissal under s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal accepted that the Claimant made a protected disclosure on 1 February 2024 regarding tips, but found that the protected disclosure was not the principal reason for dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Protected disclosure detriment claim under s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal found the detriment allegations were in time but rejected them on the basis that the decision to remove the Claimant had already been taken before the disclosure, and that allegation 3.1.1 did not contain false allegations. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.43B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.48 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023
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.