How can we help?


Head teacher’s failure to disclose relationship was gross misconduct

This week (in Reilly v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council), the Supreme Court, has found that a head teacher’s failure to disclose her relationship with a man who had been convicted of making indecent images of children justified her dismissal.

The Claimant had a close relationship with the man, was aware of his arrest (and the reasons for this) and continued to have a relationship with him after his conviction.  She sought advice from various people about whether she was under a duty to report this (including governors of other schools, a police officer and the Criminal Records Bureau) and came to the conclusion that it was not necessary.  On discovery of this relationship, the school dismissed the Claimant for gross misconduct on the basis that her failure to disclose this was a serious breach of her duties to assist the school in safeguarding its pupils.

The Employment Tribunal dismissed the Claimant’s unfair dismissal claim.  It held that although the obligation to disclose was not expressly in the Claimant’s contract, it was obvious that failing to disclose this was misconduct.  Ms Reilly lost her appeals to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

The Employment Tribunal dismissed the Claimant’s unfair dismissal claim.

The Supreme Court found:

  • Ms Reilly’s had made wide-ranging inquiries into the circumstances which triggered the duty, which showed that she even she recognised how near her case was to the border-line.
  • The governors were the objective decision makers and they decided the case fell on the side of the line which required disclosure. The man was the subject of a serious, recent conviction. The basis of his sentence was that he represented a danger to children. His relationship with the head of the school created, at the very least, a potential risk to the children. It was for the governors, not Ms Reilly, to assess the risk.
  • If she had disclosed the relationship, it is highly unlikely that she would have been dismissed or that it would have been fair to dismiss her.
  • The governors would probably have made Ms Reilly promise not to allow the man to enter the school premises and promise that outside the school she would not leave information about pupils in places potentially accessible to him.
  • The tribunal was entitled to conclude that it was a reasonable response for the governors to find that Ms Reilly’s non-disclosure not only amounted to a breach of duty but also merited her dismissal.
  • Her refusal to accept that she had been in breach of duty suggested a continuing lack of insight which, it was reasonable for the tribunal to conclude, made it inappropriate for her to continue to run the school.

This case is a reminder to employees that concealing information such as this may well be more of an issue than the underlying facts that were being concealed.  Had the employee in this case approached her school’s governors, as oppose to everyone else, it is likely she would have retained her role.

About this article

This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

  • 27 February 2024
  • Employment

Changing Attitudes to Menopause

We have set out some answers to the frequently asked questions that employers ask when considering how to support a menopausal employee.

  • 22 February 2024
  • Employment

Time to take the heat off menopausal women

On 22 February 2024, the EHRC released guidance and resources for employers designed to help employers understand their legal obligations in relation to supporting workers experiencing menopausal symptoms.

  • 22 February 2024
  • Employment

Talking Employment Law: What to do if you’re at risk of redundancy

In this podcast, Harry Berryman and Rebecca Dowle, members of the employment team, will talk through the steps that need to be taken for a redundancy to be fair and the range of criteria that can be used when determining which employees will be made redundant.

  • 12 February 2024
  • Employment

The World of Work in 2024- What Can HR Expect?

In many senses, 2024 is unlikely to be a year with radical ruptures from those that have gone before it. The significance of 2024 though, is that it is likely to build upon those megatrends impacting the world of work, which have been emerging for some time now and are only likely to strengthen as we move on in time.

  • 30 January 2024
  • Employment

Large-scale Redundancies – What to expect as an employee

In today’s uncertain economic environment, it is rare to see a week go by without a major employer announcing redundancies, be they as a result of a restructuring, a contracting business or a merger or acquisition.

  • 23 January 2024
  • Employment

Navigating Redundancy: Top Tips for Employers Considering Redundancies

Redundancy law in the UK can be tricky to get right. With that in mind, here are our top tips for employers who are considering making redundancies.