Case 4101445/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Member K Culloch Tribunal Member S Cardownie Mrs D Aitken v Fife Council — 2019
- Case reference
- 4101445/2019
- Decision date
- 17 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge I McFatridge Tribunal
- Venue
- Dundee
- Panel members
- K Culloch, S Cardownie
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Member K Culloch Tribunal Member S Cardownie Mrs D Aitken
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held that the claimant's claim of unfair dismissal and automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded. It also held that the claim of disability discrimination succeeded.
The Tribunal held that the claimant's section 47B claim, alleging detriment as a result of making protected disclosures, did not succeed because the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear it due to time bar. Remedy was reserved to be decided at a future hearing, with full written reasons to follow.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claim of unfair dismissal and automatic unfair dismissal in terms of section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeds. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the claim of disability discrimination succeeds. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the claim under section 47B for suffering detriment as a result of making protected disclosures does not succeed because the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear it due to time bar. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 47B
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
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.