chester

Chester 01244 405 555

Grosvenor Court
Foregate Street Chester
Cheshire CH1 1HG
DX: 19990 Chester

shrewsbury

Shrewsbury 01743 443043

Lakeside House
Oxon Business Park
Shrewsbury SY3 5HJ
DX: 148563 Shrewsbury 14

Slide e

Airport City, Manchester 0161 537 3324

Offices 204 and 205
Manchester Business Park
3000 Aviator Way
Manchester M22 5TG

Unfair Dismissal – K v L

stack of school books

4th November, 2020

The EAT, in overturning the earlier tribunal’s decision that a dismissal had been fair, held in the recent case of K v L that it was unfair to dismiss a teacher accused of possessing a computer with indecent child images when he wasn’t prosecuted.

The Claimant was an experienced teacher with an unblemished record. He was suspended after the Police found a shared computer at his home with indecent images, but the police couldn’t establish who had downloaded those images. The Procurator Fiscal decided not to prosecute but reserved the right to do so in the future.

The employer considered that there had been an irretrievable breakdown of trust and confidence and an unacceptable risk of serious reputational damage and dismissed the employee.

During the disciplinary process, the Claimant denied responsibility for the images. The dismissing manager didn’t uphold the images allegation but dismissed the Claimant because of an irretrievable breakdown of trust and confidence because it couldn’t be shown that he hadn’t downloaded the images.

The dismissing officer also cited a risk of reputational damage from continued employment if he were prosecuted in future. The tribunal rejected the Claimant’s unfair dismissal claim.

The Claimant appealed. The EAT upheld the dismissal unfair on two grounds:

  1. The employee was not given notice that he was at risk of being dismissed on the grounds of reputational damage and was not able to respond to these allegations; and
  2. It was not reasonable to dismiss on the basis of a “concern” that the claimant might have committed the offence and this did not satisfy the reasonableness test.

The EAT held that the employer was not entitled to assess matters on the basis of unknown risks, but the evidence known, stating that the standards of ‘reasonableness’ and ‘equity’ in s98(4) Employment Rights Act require an employer to apply the balance of probability. The risk of a future conviction was an unknown risk that couldn’t be relied upon as a basis for dismissal.

Top Tips

  • Ensure that before dismissing an employee, a fair process and investigation is carried out – this includes ensuring the employee is aware of all of the allegations and is provided with an opportunity to respond to them.
  • Ensure disciplinary procedures and policies are up to date and followed.
Debbie Coyne

Employment Law

Senior Associate
Email: [email protected]
Tel: 01244 405 537

You might also be interested in...

Chester chosen to host prestigious international conference

9th May, 2022

Chester-based law firm Aaron & Partners will host delegates from all over the world in its home city... Read More »

Handholdingkeystohouse CovidandRentArrears–WhatdoesitmeanforCommercialLandlordsandTenants

Commercial Landlords v Commercial Tenants

4th May, 2022

In light of the ongoing challenges for commercial landlords where their tenants are failing to pay, this article... Read More »

two people removing wedding rings

End of the ‘blame game’ in sight

8th April, 2022

There are significant changes that have been made to divorce law and procedure in England and Wales with... Read More »

Contact Us