Case 4112629/2018 · Employment Tribunal
(sitting alone) Mr G Doherty v Represented by: Mr M Briggs - Solicitor South Lanarkshire Council — 2017
- Case reference
- 4112629/2018
- Decision date
- 27 September 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge David Hoey
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(sitting alone) Mr G Doherty
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe only claim before the tribunal was unfair dismissal. Mr G Doherty had been employed by South Lanarkshire Council since 19 July 1982 and was summarily dismissed on 9 April 2018 after disciplinary allegations about using extracts from colleagues’ PDRs, sending confidential service-user and employee information to his personal email and to his solicitor, and allowing a press comment about his tribunal case. The tribunal found that he admitted the central acts relied on by the respondent.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The only claim before the tribunal was unfair dismissal. The tribunal rejected the automatic unfair dismissal argument under section 104(1)(a) ERA 1996 and held the dismissal fair under section 98(4) ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- section 104(1)(a) ERA 1996
- section 98(4) ERA 1996
- reasonable band of responses
- British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- Foley v Post Office
- HSBC Bank plc v Madden
- Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- Nelson v BBC (No 2)
- Abernethy v Mott, Hay and Anderson
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.