Case 2407093/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D P Herrity v Mr S Brougham (representing the committee members of the Merseyside Police Sports and Social Association) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2407093/2023
- Decision date
- 24 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop Representation
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D P Herrity
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal amended the respondent name to Mr S Brougham, representing the committee members of the Merseyside Police Sports and Social Association. The case was heard at Liverpool Employment Tribunal by video before Employment Judge Dunlop on 27 June 2024 and 18, 19 and 20 September 2024.
The claimant’s breach of contract complaint, described as a claim for notice pay, was withdrawn and dismissed. The tribunal also recorded that the claimant’s unlawful deductions from wages complaint, described as holiday pay, was withdrawn after payment of sums agreed between the parties and was dismissed.
The wrongful dismissal complaint was found not well-founded and was dismissed. The extracted record does not set out detailed reasons for that conclusion, and no monetary award was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Notice pay complaint. The tribunal recorded that it was withdrawn and dismissed. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Holiday pay complaint. The tribunal recorded that it was withdrawn upon payment of sums agreed between the parties and dismissed. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claim was not well-founded and dismissed it. | 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.