Dr J Dronsfield v The University of Reading
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Auerbach |
| Neutral Citation | UKEAT/0255/18/LA |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal,Unfair Dismissal - Procedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissal,Unfair Dismissal - Reasonableness of dismissal,Not landmark |
| Date | 02 October 2019 |
| Published date | 02 October 2019 |
Copyright 2019
Appeal No. UKEAT/0255/18/LA
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
ROLLS BUILDING, 7 ROLLS BUILDINGS, FETTER LANE, LONDON, EC4A 1NL
At the Tribunal
On 2 September 2019
Judgment handed down on 2 October 2019
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE AUERBACH
(SITTING ALONE)
DR J DRONSFIELD APPELLANT
THE UNIVERSITY OF READING RESPONDENT
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
UKEAT/0255/18/LA
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant MR BRUCE CARR
(One of Her Majesty’s Counsel)
Instructed by:
Doyle Clayton Solicitors Ltd
One Crown Court
Cheapside
London
EC2V 6LR
For the Respondent MR SIMON CHEETHAM
(One of Her Majesty’s Counsel)
Instructed by:
Blake Morgan LLP
New Kings Court
Tollgate
Chandlers Ford
Eastleigh
Hampshire
SO53 3LG
UKEAT/0255/18/LA
SUMMARY
UNFAIR DISMISSAL - Reasonableness of dismissal
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Procedural fairness
The Claimant is an academic. Following a complaint arising from his having had a sexual
relationship with a student, he was the subject of a disciplinary process which resulted in his
dismissal. The decision of an Employment Tribunal that the Claimant was fairly dismissed was
overturned by the EAT and the matter remitted for a fresh hearing. The sec ond Employment
Tribunal held that the Claimant was fairly dismissed. The Claimant appealed that decision.
The Respondent had issued detailed guidance on relationships between staff and students which
the Claimant was expected to follow. However, he could only b e dismissed for conduct of an
“immoral, scandalous or disgraceful nature incompatible with the duties of the office or
employment.” (For short: “immoral, etc., conduct.”)
The disciplinary process went through the following stages: investigation and report and
recommendations to the Vice-Chancellor; disciplinary charges and hearing; decision to dismiss
by Vice-Chancellor on recommendation of the disciplinary panel; appeal to an external
barrister. The disciplinary panel found the Claimant guilty of (1) failing to report the
relationship, which had created a potential conflict; (2) abuse of power to influence a vulnerable
student; and (3) breach of his duty of care to her. It found this amounted to immoral, etc.
conduct. The appeal officer upheld (1) and (3) and also considered that such conduct amounted
to immoral, etc., conduct.
The principal ground of appeal concerned the Tribunal’s approach to the evidence that material
in a draft of the investigation report was removed from the final report, in particular a statement
To continue reading
Request your trial