Case 6004307/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Andrea Paraskeva v Wessex Water Services Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6004307/2025
- Decision date
- 5 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Andrea Paraskeva
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the claim form detailed no claim of whistleblowing dismissal contrary to section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It also recorded that the whistleblowing detriment claims under s.47B ERA 1996 were identical to claims in earlier proceedings which had been dismissed by judgment dated 25 October 2024, and those claims were struck out.
The Tribunal found that it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant had not been continuously employed for two years as required by section 108 ERA 1996. The judgment stated that remaining claims were unaffected and would proceed to the final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the claim form detailed no section 103A whistleblowing claim, and that whistleblowing detriment claims under s.47B ERA 1996 were identical to claims previously dismissed and were struck out under Rules 38(1)(a) and 51. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim was struck out because the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction, as the claimant did not have two years' continuous employment as required by section 108 ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 103A ERA 1996
- s.47B ERA 1996
- section 108 ERA 1996
- Rule 38(1)(a)
- Rule 51
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.