Latest in Employment Law>Case Law>Dronsfield v University of Reading [2019]
Dronsfield v University of Reading [2019]
Published on: 07/10/2019
Issues Covered: Dismissal
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Jason Elliott BL Lecturer in Law and Barrister
Jason Elliott BL Lecturer in Law and Barrister

Jason Elliott was called to the Bar of Northern Ireland in 2013 and is the Associate Head of School of Law at Ulster University.  As a practising barrister, he has developed a largely civil practice representing individuals, companies and public bodies in litigation. This covers a wide range of areas including personal injuries, wills and employment law. In terms of employment law, he has represented both applicants and respondents in the Industrial Tribunal.   At Ulster University, Jason lectures extensively on the civil areas of practise such as Equity and Trusts and delivers employment law lectures for both undergraduate and postgraduate students.

Background

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

Continue reading

We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.

Already a subscriber?

Please log in to view the full article.

What you'll get:

  • Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
  • Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
  • 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
  • Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team

Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial

Disclaimer The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article. This article is correct at 07/10/2019