Mr Faviano Barretto v Apcoa Parking Limited — 2026

Mr Barretto applied for interim relief in connection with his claim that APCOA Parking automatically unfairly dismissed him under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because he had made protected disclosures. He said that he raised concerns with managers about the requirement to keep body-worn cameras switched on and reported matters to the Information Commissioner's Office. The tribunal made no findings of fact at the interim relief hearing.

The tribunal found that the evidence about the alleged disclosures was vague: Mr Barretto could not identify their dates or state with certainty what he had said, and his account varied between a disclosure of information, a complaint and a comment. His report to the Information Commissioner's Office raised wider matters on a different basis, and it was uncertain whether APCOA Parking knew about it.

The tribunal also found insufficient evidence at this stage of a causal link between any alleged protected disclosures and the dismissal. The termination email stated that Mr Barretto was dismissed during his probationary period because his performance had not met the required standard, citing absence, lateness, failure to be in uniform at the start of shifts and a request to falsify absence-related processes. Applying the interim-relief threshold of a "pretty good chance of success", the tribunal concluded that it did not appear likely that the section 103A claim would succeed and refused the application. The substantive claim was not finally determined, and no monetary remedy was awarded.