Mr D Watters v Genu Prima Limited — 2025

Case reference: 1600187/2025
Decision date: 8 October 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Lloyd-Lawrie Representation
Venue: Wales

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr D Watters

Respondent

Genu Prima Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant, Mr D Watters, brought claims against Genu Prima Limited for unfair dismissal under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and detriment on the grounds of protected disclosure under section 47B. The tribunal’s sole finding on liability was that Mr Watters did not make a qualifying disclosure.

Because there was no qualifying disclosure, both the automatic unfair dismissal claim and the protected-disclosure detriment claim failed. The judgment records that both claims were dismissed. No remedy was awarded or discussed in the written record supplied.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Claim brought pursuant to section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal found the claimant did not make a qualifying disclosure.	Dismissed	—	—
Whistleblowing	Detriment claim based on protected disclosure under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996. Dismissed because the tribunal found there was no qualifying disclosure.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.