Case 2405673/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Devine v Liverpool City Council — 2024
- Case reference
- 2405673/2023
- Decision date
- 29 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Benson
- Venue
- Liverpool
- Panel members
- Mr R Cunningham, Ms L Heath
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Devine
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat in Liverpool on 22, 23 and 24 October 2024 before Employment Judge Benson, with Mr R Cunningham and Ms L Heath as the lay members. The claimant, Mr A Devine, was represented in person and the respondent, Liverpool City Council, was represented by Mr D Tinkler.
The tribunal gave a unanimous judgment dismissing all three complaints. The complaint of unfair dismissal under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was found not well founded. The complaint of unfair dismissal under section 103A, said in the judgment to concern public interest disclosure, was also found not well founded. The complaint of being subjected to detriments on the grounds that the claimant had made protected disclosures under section 47B was likewise dismissed.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note on the judgment. The published record therefore contains the outcomes only, and no further findings or remedy were recorded in the text supplied.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Complaint under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Complaint of unfair dismissal under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, described in the judgment as a public interest disclosure claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Complaint that the claimant was subjected to detriments for making protected disclosures under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.