Ms S Comrie v Gateways Educational Trust Limited — 2026

The tribunal dismissed Ms S Comrie's claims against Gateways Educational Trust Limited for ordinary unfair dismissal, automatically unfair dismissal because of a protected disclosure, and protected disclosure detriment. Her protected disclosure claims relied on a complaint to Finance Director Mr Horbury dated 6 April 2023, which she said disclosed failures to meet financial record-keeping and reporting obligations.

The tribunal found that the relevant passages concerned credit for creating a credit card reconciliation process, Dr Johnson's dissatisfaction with its administrative burden, and Ms Comrie's offer to undertake that work. They contained no information that she could reasonably believe tended to show a criminal offence or breach of a legal obligation under section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Earlier comments could provide context but did not remove the need for sufficiently specific information in the complaint itself. Alternatively, the respondent understood the complaint as being against Mr Horbury and did not recognise it as raising financial compliance concerns. Any such disclosure therefore could not have formed part of the reason for Ms Comrie's subsequent treatment.

The tribunal found that conduct was the principal reason for dismissal. Although information from Arron Todd led Dr Johnson to initiate the investigation, there was no evidence that either influenced the decision to dismiss or uphold dismissal. The tribunal accepted the conduct reason after considering the evidence before the decision-makers, Sir Roger Marsh's dismissal letter and Stuart Watson's evidence. An overtime allegation resulted in a written warning and did not form part of the reason for dismissal.

Sir Roger Marsh had reasonable grounds to believe that Ms Comrie had emailed confidential documents to her private email address without permission. He was entitled to conclude that this created a risk of information falling into the wrong hands, since the respondent had no control over security measures for that address. His interpretation of an instruction not to contact anyone connected with the school, covering former employees and current occasional employee Jane Charles, was also reasonable, and there were reasonable grounds to believe it had been breached.

The tribunal accepted that appointing an investigator other than Helen Wallis would have been better because complaints had also been made about her. However, she was unaware of their contents and was not the dismissal decision-maker. Conducting the investigation wholly in writing was not ideal, but both parties eventually agreed to that approach. Detailed written questions and answers gave Ms Comrie adequate time and opportunity to explain her position, and other relevant witnesses were interviewed. Overall, the investigation was one a reasonable employer could have adopted.