The claimant was an academic employed by the respondent.   The claimant was dismissed by the University following a relationship he had had with a student, as well as how he had behaved at a ‘Degree Show after-party’.

There were guidelines on the relationships that academic staff could have with students which outlined that University does not wish to interfere in relationships between consenting adults but that it has a duty of care towards students.  Therefore, such relationships were ‘strongly discouraged’ and when they had arisen the Head of Department or Dean should be informed.

In the investigation, the claimant outlined that he did not report the matter because he was vulnerable and isolated, as well as not having faith in the University as they had not responded to a previous complaint made.  At the end of the investigation, the disciplinary tribunal found that the acts amounted to gross misconduct as they were ‘immoral, scandalous and disgraceful’. This alongside the claimant’s lack of contrition and reflection led to a recommendation that he be dismissed.

The Vice-Chancellor subsequently dismissed the claimant based upon this recommendation.  The claimant availed of an appeal which was chaired by an independent barrister who agreed with the findings of the original disciplinary panel, except for a finding that he had abused his position of power.  Notwithstanding, the decision to dismiss was upheld.

The claimant appealed to the ET who found that it was not unfair and this had been appealed to the EAT who had then remitted it based upon an error of law.  A subsequent ET decision was reached and the claimant appealed this again to the EAT.   There were three grounds of appeal.  The first was the ET failed to address the grounds raised by the appellant as to why his dismissal was unfair.  Those grounds that he raised related to the fact the claimant had not received the full findings of the investigation and that there were interventions made by the University solicitor, Ms Rowe. The second argument was that the Tribunal came to its own findings that had not been put forward by the respondent and the third argument was the ET provided no adequate reasons as to why the claimant’s arguments were rejected.

The EAT rejected all of the grounds of appeal from the appellant.  As for the second argument, the EAT held that one should be aware of the decision in Brent LBC v Fuller [2011] stating that the Tribunal decision should be read in the round and not in a pernickety way.  On the final argument, the Tribunal outlined that the requirements from Meek v City of Birmingham DC [1987] had been met, which requires the Tribunal to do no more than to make clear findings of fact and answer any question of law raised.  Accordingly, the EAT dismissed the appeal.

Practical Lessons

The practical lessons that can be seen from this case are largely for the Tribunal.  This was a protracted case, with this being the second appeal to the EAT.   It demonstrates the importance of the Tribunal in setting out their factual findings and answering the questions of law.   This should also be borne in mind by successful respondents at a Tribunal level as they would wish to avoid unnecessary appeals.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d94845140f0b65e5dbe0508/Dr_J_Dronsfield_v_The_University_of_Reading_UKEAT_0255_18_LA.pdf