Former Mayor of Liverpool Joe Anderson was today accused of threatening to derail a disciplinary investigation into an ex-city council director during a tense employment tribunal.
Mr Anderson was called as a witness by former city council Regeneration chief Nick Kavanagh, who has brought an unfair dismissal case against the local authority after he was removed from his position last March. This morning he was cross-examined by council lawyer Tim Kenward, leading to some fractious exchanges.
Mr Kavanagh was dramatically arrested at the Cunard Building by Merseyside Police as part of the force's Operation Aloft in December 2019. He was subsequently suspended from his chief officer job and was eventually dismissed in March 2021 following a council disciplinary hearing. Mr Anderson was arrested under the same operation in December 2020. Neither Mr Kavanagh nor Mr Anderson have been charged and both deny wrongdoing.
READ MORE: Joe Anderson backs former council boss in explosive unfair dismissal case
Mr Kavanagh is currently bringing an unfair dismissal claim against the city council at Liverpool Civil and Family Court. He claims the council's chief executive, Tony Reeves, went out of his way to construct a case against him to remove him from his job. Mr Reeves and other council witnesses have insisted that all proper procedures were followed.
After Mr Kavanagh was arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to defraud and misconduct in a public office in December 2019, he was suspended by the council and an independent disciplinary investigation was launched, carried out by Simon Goacher of law firm Weightmans.
Today the council's lawyer Mr Kenward accused then city mayor Mr Anderson of threatening to derail the council's disciplinary investigation into Mr Kavanagh, which would eventually lead to his dismissal last March. He referred to emails from the former mayor where he had repeatedly asked to see the disciplinary report into the former Regeneration chief before it was presented to the council's Appointments and Disciplinary panel.
Mr Kenward referenced an email from Mr Anderson to a senior council officer, in which he suggested that if he didn't get to see the disciplinary report, 'there would be no disciplinary panel' the lawyer added: "Was that a threat to derail the whole process unless you got your way?"
Responding, Mr Anderson said he was 'frustrated' and agreed it could seem like a threat and that he shouldn't have said it. He insisted that he only wanted to see the report into Mr Kavanagh to check it for accuracies. He added: "I wanted to see if if it was accurate and wanted to avoid any comments to the panel that were incorrect."
Mr Kenward asked if the former mayor was going to 'edit any things out of the report that he disagreed with?' to which Mr Anderson said: "No, it was about accuracy."
The council's lawyer also referred to the fact that Mr Anderson had been unhappy that he had not initially been interviewed by Mr Goacher as part of that disciplinary investigation. Mr Kenward asked: "Were you seeking to put pressure on the investigating officer?" Mr Anderson responded that he wanted to 'make sure that the investigating officer was able to have all opinions of what went on.'
In his written submission to the hearing, current council chief executive Mr Reeves explained that his concerns regarding Mr Kavanagh's conduct initially involved the highly controversial New Chinatown development in central Liverpool. He said he was contacted in late 2018 by Jonathan Falkingham, the boss of developer Urban Splash, raising concerns about the site and how Mr Kavanagh had acted over the transfer of Urban Splash's interests to a developer called PHD1. It was agreed that an independent review would be carried out into the situation and reported back.
Mr Reeves said: "The report said that Nick Kavanagh had made a comment after the presentations to the effect that if Urban Splash transferred its interests to a developer called X1 then planning permission would not have been granted, which was a major factor in putting pressure on Urban Splash. The report had a recommendation that 'Liverpool Council considers whether investigations should be carried out in respect of the conduct of any individual officers.' He added that the contents of this report were of 'great concern'.
Giving evidence this morning, Mr Anderson said that he went to speak with Mr Falkingham at his house, and said Mr Falkingham had told him he did not have any concerns about Nick Kavanagh. In his witness statement, Mr Anderson claimed it was the former Deputy Mayor Ann O'Byrne who had been the source of the developer's concerns.
He wrote: "Jonathan Falkingham of Urban Splash said he had concerns about the successful candidate of PHD1/North Point Global and that Ann O'Byrne had hugged their representative Peter McInnes when he made their presentation. She did not stay for the other submissions. At no time do I believe that Nick Kavanagh acted improperly in what was a peripheral role to Ann O'Byrne."
Responding to the testimony today, council lawyer Mr Kenward said it was 'not credible' for Mr Anderson to suggest that Mr Falkingham had no issue with Mr Kavanagh as he was actually the source of the complaint against him regarding the New Chinatown situation. Responding, Mr Anderson said: "I think it is very naïve to suggest my credibility is at stake. I am saying what I recall truthfully."
The tribunal is expected to conclude tomorrow, with a result expected several weeks later.
