Case 6005980/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Anita Parkes v Guncast Swimming Pools Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6005980/2025
- Decision date
- 21 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lumby REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Anita Parkes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Lumby at Southampton, the Tribunal determined the protected disclosure issues in Anita Parkes's claims against Guncast Swimming Pools Limited. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel.
The Tribunal held that the claimant did not make any protected disclosures. On that basis, the complaint of detriment pursuant to section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed.
For the same reason, the complaint of automatically unfair dismissal pursuant to section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was also dismissed. The judgment records no monetary award or remedy.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Complaint of detriment pursuant to section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 dismissed because the claimant did not make any protected disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Complaint of automatically unfair dismissal pursuant to section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 dismissed because the claimant did not make any protected disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
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.