Case 3201106/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Liam Fulcher v Pumpgyms Limited and 1 other — 2026
- Case reference
- 3201106/2025
- Decision date
- 3 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Iman Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Liam Fulcher
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered Mr Liam Fulcher's application for interim relief following his dismissal on 4 December 2025. It found that the application, presented on 10 December 2025, was brought within seven calendar days of dismissal and that the tribunal therefore had jurisdiction to consider it under section 128(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The application was based on allegations that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was protected disclosures, with the judgment also recording claims relating to trade union membership or activities. Mr Fulcher relied primarily on a written disclosure dated 25 November 2025 and on earlier communications between September and November 2025, saying these raised matters including data protection, TUPE, employment law compliance, health and safety, safeguarding, HR records, union-related detriment and governance concerns. The respondents relied on the disciplinary invitation dated 24 November 2025, which pre-dated the 25 November disclosure and set out alleged gross misconduct matters concerning another employee's absence and conduct at work.
Applying the interim relief threshold, the tribunal held that Mr Fulcher had not shown a pretty good chance of succeeding in proving that he made protected disclosures and was dismissed for making them. It considered that the correspondence did not persuasively establish, with the cogency and clarity required for interim relief, whether information had been provided in the public interest or whether it was motivated by the ongoing disciplinary process. The tribunal noted that the respondents raised relevant allegations and that the evidence would need to be tested at a final hearing.
The application for interim relief was dismissed. The tribunal stressed that this was an early summary assessment based on limited documents, without oral evidence, full disclosure or the respondent's response to the allegations, and that dismissal of interim relief did not necessarily mean the claimant would be unsuccessful at a final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The dismissed matter was the claimant's application for interim relief. The tribunal did not finally determine the underlying allegations of automatic unfair dismissal arising from protected disclosures or trade union membership/activities. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.128 ERA 1996
- s.129 ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- section 43B ERA 1996
- Taplin v C Shippam Ltd
- Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz
- Parsons v Airplus International Ltd
- Al Qasimi v Robinson
- Wollenberg v Global Gaming Ventures (Leeds) Ltd
- pretty good chance
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.