Case 2408746/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Hollywood v Governing Body of Northwood Community Primary School and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2408746/2020
- Decision date
- 24 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr J Hollywood
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Hollywood was headteacher of Northwood Community Primary School and was dismissed on 10 March 2020 after engaging CXH, a former teacher then subject to a Prohibition Order, to assist the school music teacher for a limited period before an Easter performance. The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was conduct, namely the respondent's view that he had failed to apply recruitment procedures concerning safeguarding risks and failed to take account of reputational risk. It rejected the argument that the dismissal reason should be attributed to the Chair of Governors under Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti.
The unfair dismissal complaint succeeded. The tribunal found that the respondent genuinely believed the two misconduct allegations, but that the investigation was flawed because the investigating officer had not acted even-handedly, had taken an accusatorial approach, and had not sought exculpatory evidence. It also found that the disciplinary and appeal panels did not adequately address the claimant's defences, that the appeal panel did not have the disciplinary hearing notes, and that alternatives to summary dismissal were not properly considered despite the claimant's clean record, contribution to the school, and the potential career consequences of dismissal.
The wrongful dismissal claim also succeeded. The tribunal found that no recruitment procedure had been identified which the claimant had failed to apply, that the respondents had found he had not failed to undertake necessary safeguarding checks, and that the reputational risk had to be assessed in the context that supervised engagement of a prohibited teacher was lawful. Taking the two proven allegations together, the tribunal found they did not amount to repudiatory conduct, wilful ignorance of responsibilities or instructions, or action intentionally placing others in danger.
The unlawful deduction from wages claim succeeded. The claimant had repaid an alleged overpayment for 11 February 2020 to 29 February 2020 and was later paid £6,658.74 gross for the period 11 February 2020 to 10 March 2020. The tribunal found that his normal gross monthly pay was £6,810.25 and ordered payment of the £151.51 gross shortfall. Other remedy issues, including unfair dismissal compensation, Polkey, contributory fault and any ACAS Code adjustment, were left for a remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Liability succeeded; unfair dismissal remedy issues, including Polkey, contribution, ACAS uplift, basic award and compensatory award, were held over to a remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found breach of contract in respect of notice pay and wrongful dismissal, but no notice-pay amount was awarded in this liability judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awarded as a gross shortfall in salary for 11 February 2020 to 10 March 2020. | Upheld | — | £152 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £152
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
19 references- Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti
- British Home Stores v Burchell
- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- band of reasonable responses
- Foley v Post Office
- HSBC Bank plc v Madden
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt
- Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust v Roldan
- Eastlands Homes Partnership Ltd v Cunningham
- Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust v Westwood
- Mbubaegbu v Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
- West London Mental Health NHS Trust v Sarkar
- Wilson v Racher
- Laws v London Chronicle (Indicator Newspapers) Ltd
- Adesokan v Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd
- s.13 ERA 1996
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.