Case 2600625/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Paul Dickens v Nottinghamshire County Council Record of an attended Hearing at the Employment Tribunal Audio Recorded by CVP — 2024
- Case reference
- 2600625/2024
- Decision date
- 1 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler
- Venue
- Nottingham Heard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Paul Dickens
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by Nottinghamshire County Council as a Team Manager and designated Safeguarding Officer at Clayfields House. He was dismissed for gross misconduct after the respondent concluded that he failed to take appropriate action about safeguarding concerns involving an Assistant Practitioner, Adult 'R', and a 15-year-old resident, Child 'A'.
The tribunal found that the respondent had a genuine belief that the claimant failed in his safeguarding duties, that this belief followed a reasonable investigation, and that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses. It also found that the claimant's double jeopardy, res judicata or estoppel argument did not apply, because the earlier disciplinary warning was not an adjudication engaging those doctrines and there were cogent reasons to reopen the matter.
The tribunal concluded that a reasonable employer could treat the claimant's lack of appropriate and timely action as gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal. The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claim of unfair dismissal is not well founded and is dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- sections 98(1) and (2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- band of reasonable responses
- res judicata
- double jeopardy
- estoppel
- British Home Stores v Burchell
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Limited v Hitt [2002] EWCA Civ 1588
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.