Case 1304610/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Wood v Halesowen College — 2024
- Case reference
- 1304610/2023
- Decision date
- 14 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Childe REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Wood
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr K Wood, was employed by Halesowen College as a Lecturer in Esports and was dismissed for gross misconduct after complaints made by students A and B. The tribunal summarised the allegations as inappropriate conversations and conduct in the classroom, but it found on the balance of probabilities that those allegations were fabricated. It accepted the claimant's evidence that he understood the need to maintain professional boundaries, had raised safeguarding concerns himself, and had not behaved in the way alleged.
In reaching that conclusion, the tribunal relied on the fact that the respondent called no witnesses who had been present when the alleged conduct was said to have occurred, while the claimant gave evidence it found measured and honest. It accepted evidence from other witnesses that supported the claimant's professional conduct, and it rejected the respondent's case that the student evidence showed a pattern of truthful but inconsistent recollection. The tribunal found that the claimant did not commit gross misconduct and that summary dismissal without notice was therefore not justified.
The tribunal also held that the respondent breached the contractual disciplinary procedure incorporated into the claimant's contract. It found that the respondent failed to carry out a full investigation before dismissal, including failing to interview four relevant witnesses requested by the claimant and failing to obtain his MyConcern and MyHalesowen notes. It also found a separate breach because the respondent relied on the Colmers Reference as part of the dismissal decision without telling the claimant in advance or providing the document before the hearing.
Damages were awarded for one week's notice, the period the tribunal found it would have taken to complete the contractual disciplinary process, and a 15% ACAS uplift for unreasonable breach of the Code. The tribunal recorded compensation of £3,431.31, made up of £596.75 for one week's loss of notice, £2,387 for the four-week delay in following the procedure, and £447.56 as the uplift. It noted that holiday pay and pension entitlement were left to be agreed separately.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant's dismissal without notice was not justified because, on the balance of probabilities, the student allegations of gross misconduct were fabricated and did not amount to a repudiatory breach. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal also held that the claimant's dismissal was in breach of the incorporated contractual disciplinary procedure, including the failure to conduct a full investigation and the failure to disclose the Colmers Reference before dismissal. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,431
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £3,431
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
7 references- balance of probabilities
- repudiatory breach
- Gunton v Richmond-on-Thames Borough Council
- s.207A TULR(C)A
- Kuehne and Nagel Ltd v Cosgrove
- Slade v Biggs and Stewart
- ACAS Code of Practice: Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.