Claimant v Livingston Football Club Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Tribunal found three protected disclosures were made (30 Jan, 31 Jan, 2 March 2023) but none of the asserted detriments were established. Detriments either did not occur or were not causally linked to protected disclosures. Time bar also applied to early detriments.
Tribunal found claimant resigned and was not constructively dismissed. Respondent's actions did not breach implied term of trust and confidence. Even if there had been constructive dismissal, no evidence protected disclosures from January/March 2023 motivated respondent's actions in August 2023.
Tribunal found no fundamental breach of contract. Respondent's conduct when viewed objectively and cumulatively did not destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence. Last straw (failure to arrange meeting 25-31 August) was not unreasonable given claimant was liaising with fourth party about availability and did not propose alternative dates.
Claimant withdrew the claim for contractual notice pay during the final hearing.
Facts
Claimant was In-House General Counsel for a Scottish football club earning £600 per month. Between January and August 2023 he raised concerns about player payments, VAT irregularities, financial position and risk of insolvency, and litigation management. In August 2023 a disagreement arose with the first team manager over a power of attorney held by the claimant. On 23 August the claimant's access to the Xero financial system was temporarily removed. The claimant resigned on 31 August 2023 alleging bullying and isolation.
Decision
Tribunal found three protected disclosures were made in January/March 2023 concerning tax and insolvency issues. However, none of the nine alleged detriments were established - they either did not occur, were not unreasonable, or were not causally linked to the disclosures. The claimant was not constructively dismissed as the respondent's conduct did not breach the implied term of trust and confidence. All claims dismissed.
Practical note
A claimant asserting whistleblowing detriment and automatic unfair dismissal must prove both that detriments occurred and that protected disclosures materially influenced the employer's conduct, even where legitimate protected disclosures about serious financial irregularities have been made.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8000529/2023
- Decision date
- 7 August 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- In-House General Counsel
- Salary band
- Under £15,000
- Service
- 4 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No