Claimant v Hornsey School for Girls

The tribunal found that the First Respondent not informing the claimant of the allegations at the outset was consistent with its standard fact-finding approach and was applied irrespective of race. Lian Murray's practice was to explore matters without revealing precise allegations to avoid influencing answers. There was no evidence this approach was motivated by race or that a non-Black comparator would have been treated differently.

The tribunal found that the termination and removal from premises on 24 February 2023 was based on the claimant's conduct during the fact-finding meeting and in the playground afterwards, not his race. Angela Rooke and Kuljit Rahelu acted on reports of the claimant's irate behaviour, use of inflammatory language, and refusal to cooperate. The tribunal accepted evidence that a Caucasian woman had previously been treated similarly. The reason was the claimant's conduct, not his race.

The tribunal found no evidence that the First Respondent's failure to inform the claimant of allegations or its decision to terminate was motivated by sex. The approach taken was standard practice applied irrespective of sex. The tribunal found the claimant's behaviour, not his sex, was the reason for the decisions made.

The tribunal found that Kirsty McKelvie of the Second Respondent did not explain why the claimant was removed because she did not know the details herself as of 24 February 2023. The tribunal accepted the Second Respondent's policy not to disclose information where safeguarding concerns existed. The reason for not explaining was lack of information and policy compliance, not the claimant's race.

The tribunal found no evidence that the Second Respondent's failure to explain the removal was motivated by sex. Kirsty McKelvie's actions were based on lack of information and the client relationship with the First Respondent, not the claimant's sex.