The claimant was headteacher at a school maintained by the respondent. She was dismissed after she failed to disclose that she had a close friendship with a convicted sex offender. 

The respondent decided that the failure amounted to a serious breach of an implied term of the contract of employment amounting to gross misconduct and dismissed her summarily. The Employment Tribunal found that the dismissal was procedurally unfair but reduced compensation by 100% for contributory fault. 

After two more unsuccessful appeals she appealed to the Supreme Court (UKSC). The appeal was rejected as it was held that there was a contractual obligation to safeguard students, of which the claimant was in breach. The respondent had been entitled to conclude that she was no longer a suitable person to be in charge of the school. The claimant’s relationship with the sex offender created a potential risk to the children at the school, which required the assessment of the governors.

This case is most notable for what the UKSC had to say about the well-known case of British Homes Stores Ltd v Burchell [1980] ICR 303, which for over 40 years has been applied by tribunals when considering dismissals. The thrust of that decision is that an employer does not need to have conclusive proof of any misconduct, only a genuine and reasonable belief and must conduct a reasonable investigation in order to be able to hold that belief. 

In the present case, Lady Hale and Lord Wilson questioned whether the Burchell approach remains the correct one but stopped short of deciding a point of law. This could be very significant as the Burchell approach affords employers latitude since they benefit from the “range of reasonable responses” at all stages. 

This issue is unlikely to go away and the UKSC has invited future argument on this point. Any modification of the current Burchell approach would almost certainly be to the disadvantage of employers.