Education Digest Autumn Term 2024 – Case law update

Malabver-Goulbourne v Arbor Academy Trust

A headteacher whose 3-year-old child was a pupil at the school where she worked has been awarded £102,328.80 in compensation after a tribunal found she had been unfairly dismissed for ‘tapping’ her son’s hand.

The events took place on 17 January 2022 in the Claimant’s office after school had finished. Her son, who had squirted sanitiser into his eye weeks before, was playing with a hand sanitizer bottle. After failing to listen when being told to stop, the Claimant tapped the back of his hand with two fingers to discipline him. This was witnessed by a colleague who reported this incident.

The Claimant was subsequently dismissed for gross misconduct and referred to both the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) and Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA).

Following a loss of confidence in herself and experiencing mental health conditions, the Claimant did not seek any work until May 2023, when the DBS confirmed that she would not be barred from teaching. Then in October 2023 the tribunal delivered their judgement that this dismissal had been ‘substantively unfair’, acknowledging  that the Trust had given no consideration to the circumstances being that the Claimant was acting in her capacity as a parent.

In November 2023, the Claimant was informed by the TRA that they would not be continuing their investigation into her, confirming that the Claimant’s actions were insufficient to bring the profession into disrepute. The tribunal however, made a 20% reduction in compensation based on the fact that in her role as a headteacher, a tap on the hand can very well be considered common assault.

Powell v University of Portsmouth & another

The Claimant was a principal lecturer at the University of Portsmouth. In February 2018 he began to suffer unpredictable and near-daily blackouts, which were later confirmed to be due to an undiagnosed cardiac impairment.

By May 2018, the frequency of the blackouts had declined but they remained unpredictable and proved disruptive to his ability to function, requiring him to take regular breaks in order to recover. In the summer 2018, following a period of sick leave, the Claimant began a phased return to work. In this period, it was recommended the Claimant should not teach large groups and only work on an individual basis. This was on the understanding that by Christmas he would gradually return to full teaching capacity. Over the following months however, the Claimant’s health deteriorated and he was unable to resume his full work duties.

Despite having had a further diagnosis and pacemaker fitted, in March 2019 a further occupational health report concluded that the Claimant was not a disabled person as defined under the Equality Act 2010. The Claimant raised a grievance about this decision, which was rejected and in July 2019 he appealed.  During this period, the Claimant’s relationship with the university broke down and he resigned his position, claiming both constructive dismissal and disability discrimination.

It was the university’s view that the Claimant’s primary role was to teach, and no reasonable adjustments could be made for him to continue in this capacity. The appeals tribunal agreed with this view and held that the termination of employment did not amount to constructive dismissal and that the university had not discriminated against the Claimant.