Case 3200299/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Kevin Lilly v Southend High School for Boys Academy Trust — 2026
- Case reference
- 3200299/2024
- Decision date
- 23 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge V Othen Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Kevin Lilly
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought an unfair dismissal claim after being dismissed for alleged misconduct. The respondent said the dismissal was fair because the reason related to conduct, and the tribunal considered whether that was a potentially fair reason and whether dismissal was fair within section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal found that dismissal was outside the band of reasonable responses. It took account of the claimant's length of service, the seriousness and impact of the allegations, the respondent's communications with him, the one-off nature and context of the incident, and whether the respondent had reasonably considered his possible medical, psychological, speech and language needs or communication differences.
The tribunal concluded that the claimant was unfairly dismissed by the respondent within section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Remedy was not determined in the extracted judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment determined liability only and did not address remedy. The supplied PDF text was truncated, but the judgment and conclusion state that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- sections 98(1) and (2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- band of reasonable responses
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.