Mrs R Lane v Gloucestershire County Council and 1 other — 2023

The Claimant, Mrs R Lane, was a long-serving teacher and later Executive Headteacher at Coney Hill Primary School and Finlay Primary School, employed by Gloucestershire County Council. The case arose from an anonymous email in September 2018 alleging that building work at the schools had been routed through Snape Contracting Services Limited and connected to the Claimant’s husband, Mr Keith Lane. The Respondent investigated the allegations through an audit report, a report by Mrs Lynette Smith, and later an external report by Miss Rachel Grandfield, all of which focused on declarations of interest, procurement, and the Nolan principles.

The Tribunal found that the Claimant knew Mr Lane had been significantly involved in school projects over a substantial period, that she was a shareholder in his company, and that she had received dividends. It accepted that she did not believe Mr Lane was being paid by the schools, but found that the absence of an actual payment to him did not remove the need for declarations. On the evidence, the disciplinary panel genuinely believed the Claimant had failed to make appropriate declarations of interest, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and carried out a reasonable investigation in the circumstances. The tribunal rejected the Claimant’s arguments about predetermination, the use of a second investigation, the composition of the disciplinary panel, delay, and alleged unfairness arising from the appeal process.

The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed. The Tribunal applied the Burchell test and section 98(4) ERA 1996, and held that dismissal was a fair response to persistent failures to declare interests in circumstances involving public money and extensive involvement by Mr Lane in school projects. It also found that, had the dismissal been unfair, it would have reduced compensation by 75% for contributory conduct, though that issue did not affect outcome because the claim failed.

The wrongful dismissal claim succeeded. The Tribunal held that although the Claimant’s conduct undermined trust and confidence, it did not amount to a repudiatory breach showing an intention to abandon the contract, so summary dismissal without notice was not justified. The Tribunal said the Claimant was entitled to contractual notice, and noted the Respondent’s submission that the default notice period under section 86 ERA 1996 might be 12 weeks, but no final monetary remedy was determined in the judgment and the parties were directed to resolve the point or seek a remedy hearing.