Case 3314700/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Miss Darcey Foulser v Anthony Katrina Associates Limited trading as AKA Communications — 2020

Case reference: 3314700/2020
Decision date: 17 July 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge G Tobin Members
Venue: Watford Hearing Centre
Panel members: Ms K Charman, Mr R Jewell

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Miss Darcey Foulser

Respondent

Anthony Katrina Associates Limited trading as AKA Communications

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At the hearing at Watford Hearing Centre on 23, 24 and 25 August 2022, the Employment Tribunal gave a unanimous judgment in the claimant's favour on the substantive liability issues. It found, pursuant to s43B Employment Rights Act 1996, that Miss Darcey Foulser made 4 of the 5 protected disclosures identified in her Claim Form.

The tribunal also held that she was automatically unfairly dismissed, in breach of s103A Employment Rights Act 1996. In addition, it found under s13 Employment Rights Act 1996 that she was not paid wages for work undertaken between 23 March 2020 and 17 July 2020, and it held that she was dismissed in breach of contract.

No quantum was determined in this judgment. The tribunal recorded that quantification of compensation, damages and money outstanding would be dealt with at a remedy hearing, unless the parties resolved matters directly within 28 days.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Whistleblowing	The tribunal found, pursuant to s43B Employment Rights Act 1996, that the claimant made 4 of the 5 protected disclosures identified in her Claim Form.	Upheld	—	—
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal found the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed, in breach of s103A Employment Rights Act 1996.	Upheld	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	The tribunal found that, under s13 Employment Rights Act 1996, the claimant was not paid wages for work undertaken between 23 March 2020 and 17 July 2020.	Upheld	—	—
Breach of contract	The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract.	Upheld	—	—

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.

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.