Mr N Kavanagh v Liverpool City Council — 2022

The claimant, Director of Regeneration, was dismissed without notice following a disciplinary process concerning property and regeneration transactions. He claimed unfair dismissal, alleging procedural unfairness, that the Chief Executive had undermined or scapegoated him, that the investigator's role was improper, and that dismissal was outside the band of reasonable responses.

The tribunal found that the respondent had genuine reasons to investigate, including concerns raised about the China Town development and other complaints or audit issues. It found the disciplinary investigation was reasonable and thorough, and that the claimant knew the case against him and was able to participate, give evidence, make submissions, and question witnesses. The tribunal rejected the allegation that the Chief Executive colluded against or scapegoated the claimant.

The tribunal accepted that the disciplinary panel made its own decision and did not simply adopt the investigator's position. It found that the procedural matters relied on by the claimant, individually and collectively, did not make the dismissal unfair. The tribunal concluded that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had committed misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief after a reasonable investigation, and that summary dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses.