Case 2402751/2022 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Ms S Doyle (2) Mrs K Dowd v City of Liverpool College — 2025
- Case reference
- 2402751/2022
- Decision date
- 25 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barker
- Venue
- Liverpool
- Panel members
- Ms M Plimley, Mr P Dobson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Ms S Doyle (2) Mrs K Dowd
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting at Liverpool over multiple days in September and November 2024 with deliberations concluding in chambers on 9 January 2025, unanimously found that both claimants had been constructively unfairly dismissed by City of Liverpool College. The claimants, who were senior staff in the respondent's Digital Academy, had resigned in January 2022 following a sequence of events that the Tribunal considered amounted to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. A list of 45 alleged breaches had been narrowed by agreement during the hearing to 25 allegations spanning the academic year 2021-2022, including matters connected to the principal's child (referred to as 'X') being educated at the Digital Academy, a whistleblowing investigation conducted by external solicitors, and the claimants' suspensions in January 2022.
Mrs Dowd had also brought two disability discrimination complaints under sections 15 and 26 of the Equality Act 2010, namely discrimination arising from disability and harassment related to disability. The Tribunal found both of these complaints not well-founded and dismissed them. An earlier complaint by Mrs Dowd of automatic unfair dismissal for trade union activities had been withdrawn before the substantive hearing and was dismissed in a separate judgment dated 9 February 2024.
The Tribunal also made case-management decisions, including a Restricted Reporting Order under Rule 50 covering certain 2018 emails about the principal's child, and refused the respondent's late application to introduce handwritten notes by Ms Schofield that had only emerged during cross-examination of Ms Banks. The judgment is reserved and the text provided does not include a monetary remedy; the issue of compensation appears to be reserved for a further hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Both claimants' complaints of constructive unfair dismissal were well-founded. Remedy not addressed in the judgment text provided; likely reserved to a separate remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Mrs Dowd's complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability (s.15 Equality Act 2010) was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Mrs Dowd's complaint of harassment related to disability (s.26 Equality Act 2010) was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- Rule 50 of the ET Rules of Procedure 2013
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.