Claimant v The Liverpool Blue Coat School
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the respondent had a genuine belief the claimant committed gross misconduct relating to a 2012 incident where he gave an award referencing a sexual assault. The investigation was reasonable, the procedure fair, and dismissal within the band of reasonable responses given the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) assessment that the claimant posed a continued risk to children and the panel's finding that the claimant's evidence was not credible.
The tribunal accepted the evidence that the claimant was guilty of gross misconduct. The tribunal found the claimant knew about a sexual assault before giving an award referencing it, failed to protect the welfare of a pupil, and did not demonstrate professional conduct expected of a teacher and senior leader. The LADO found the claimant posed a continued risk to children. The respondent could have no trust and confidence in the claimant and was entitled to dismiss without notice.
Facts
The claimant was an Assistant Headteacher dismissed in March 2023 for gross misconduct relating to an incident at a 2012 Year 11 prom. He gave an award to a male pupil ('the boy you would least like to share a taxi with') which referenced a sexual assault the pupil had committed on a female pupil (AB) two years earlier, causing AB distress. In 2022 a former teacher's social media post about the incident led to complaints from AB and another former pupil. An investigation was conducted, the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) concluded the claimant posed a risk to children, and the claimant was dismissed after a disciplinary hearing. The claimant had a previous final written warning in 2010 for an inappropriate relationship with a sixth form student.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed both the unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims. The tribunal found the respondent had a genuine belief based on reasonable grounds following a reasonable investigation that the claimant knew about the sexual assault when giving the award, that he failed to protect AB's welfare, and did not demonstrate expected professional conduct. The tribunal accepted the LADO assessment that the claimant posed a continued risk to children and found the claimant's evidence not credible. Dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses and the claimant was guilty of gross misconduct entitling summary dismissal.
Practical note
A tribunal will accept a Local Authority Designated Officer's risk assessment in a safeguarding case even where the underlying incident occurred many years earlier, if the employee's current evidence about that incident is found to be incredible and undermines trust and confidence.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2409161/2023
- Decision date
- 19 May 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 6
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- education
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Assistant Headteacher
- Service
- 32 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep