Ofsted v Hewston [2025]
Decision Number: EWCA Civ 250 Legal Body: England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Published on: 18/03/2025
Issues Covered:
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Jason Elliott BL Barrister & Lecturer of Law, Ulster University
Jason Elliott BL Barrister & Lecturer of Law, Ulster University
Jason elliott new
LinkedIn

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.

Summary

Court of Appeal dismisses appeal from employer when dismissal was found both substantively and procedurally unfair. Useful guidance given on running an investigation and that complaints should be given as part of the process.

Background

The claimant was employed as a School Inspector since 2007. In 2019 he attended an inspection at a school where there were poor relations with the respondent. During the inspection, as what was termed as a ‘friendly act’, the claimant brushed water off a pupil’s head and touched their shoulder. The school reported the incident to the respondent and the local authority designated officer. This led to a disciplinary hearing. During the hearing the claimant stated he did not consider it gross misconduct but stated he would not do it again because of the stress it caused.  He was dismissed with the respondent stating it was gross misconduct for bringing the respondent into disrepute due to a grave error of judgement.

Outcome

The Tribunal, at first instance, dismissed the claim.  However, the EAT found that the dismissal was unfair as it would not have been obvious to the claimant that such action would lead to dismissal.  There were no safeguarding issues raised, the employer had no ‘no touch’ policy in place and there was no training relating to the matter.  The EAT also found that the dismissal was procedurally unfair due to the lack of information given to the claimant namely the statement from the pupil or the school’s complaint.

The respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal. The appeal related to the reasoning from the EAT which the respondent stated focused too much on the absence of a policy on touching. However, the Court of Appeal stating that was a starting point for its reasoning which looked at whether the employee would have appreciated that acting in that way could lead to dismissal.  Indeed, the claimant’s point that he would not do anything of the kind again was not sufficient to demonstrate that there was misconduct. 

The Court of Appeal, on the procedural point, stated that it was a matter of good practice to show any contemporary record of a person’s complaint unless there was a good reason not to do so.  The claimant had alleged that the complaint could have been due to strained relations between the school and the respondent, and the documentation may have supported that case yet the claimant was deprived of the chance to make those points due to the fact that the documents were not disclosed.  Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the finding of unfair dismissal remained.

Practical Guidance

The Court of Appeal provides some useful guidance when it comes to investigations and disciplinary proceedings by stating that obvious good practice is to ensure that a contemporary record of a complaint is made available to the employee.  This was not done and led to procedural issues with the dismissal.  However, there were substantive grounds as there was no bright line between the employee’s action here and any reasoning why the employee would believe that it would lead to action amounting to gross misconduct. This was, in part, because there was no policy prohibiting the conduct.

You can read the case in full here:
https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2025/250.html&query=(hewston) 

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 18/03/2025