Case 8002160/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D McCue v Coldside Medical Practice — 2024
- Case reference
- 8002160/2024
- Decision date
- 18 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Mackay
- Venue
- Dundee
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D McCue
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr McCue worked as practice manager from June 2018 until he resigned on 1 July 2024 with notice to 9 October 2024. He said he had been constructively dismissed because the practice gave him little support, involved him in partner disputes, changed his duties, outsourced bookkeeping and payroll, and treated him aggressively at meetings on 5 and 11 June 2024. The tribunal preferred the respondent's witnesses and contemporaneous documents and found that he had in fact been supported, given autonomy, and funded to undertake an MBA, and that he had not been required to mediate partner conflicts.
The tribunal found that the 5 June and 11 June 2024 meetings were not aggressive or disparaging as the claimant alleged. It accepted that concerns had arisen about the claimant's handling of practice finances, including the gym membership, mobile phone payments, an amended expenditure limit, and the bookkeeping arrangements, and held that the decision to outsource bookkeeping was a legitimate response to those concerns. Applying the constructive dismissal authorities cited in the judgment, the tribunal held there was no repudiatory breach, whether individually or cumulatively, and that the reasons given in the resignation letter were inconsistent with the claim.
On protected disclosures, Mr McCue alleged disclosures about the use of Scottish Government sustainability loan monies and about the recruitment of his successor. The tribunal found that he had not made a qualifying disclosure of information, had not shown a reasonably held belief that the matters were in the public interest, and had not identified conduct falling within section 43B ERA. It also found that his concerns about the recruitment process were obstructive and, in part, dishonest. Because no protected disclosure was established, the alleged detriments were not made out; the tribunal also held that the early termination of employment, the updated reference, and the other challenged acts were justified in light of the concerns it had found.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Claim pleaded as constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal found no repudiatory breach of contract, whether by the June 2024 meetings, the outsourcing of bookkeeping, the handling of partner conflicts, or the other matters relied on. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claim for detriment for protected disclosure. The tribunal found that no qualifying disclosure of information was made, no reasonably held public interest belief was shown, and the alleged detriments were not established; it also noted that the respondent's actions were justified in any event. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International Ltd
- Lewis v Motorworld Garages Ltd
- Omilaju v Waltham Forest London Borough Council
- Nottinghamshire County Council v Meikle
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust
- s.43A ERA 1996
- s.43B ERA 1996
- Williams v Brown
- Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management Ltd v Geduld
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.