The Claimant was the headteacher of a primary school. She was dismissed following a disciplinary hearing at which 3 charges were found to be substantiated, including breaches in the tendering process leading to pecuniary interest. In this case a contract had been awarded to a building firm which was owned and operated by the Claimant’s husband and brother in law. Her appeal against the dismissal was unsuccessful and she made the following claims to the ET:

(1) Unfair dismissal; the Claimant contended that her dismissal was unfair contrary to section 98 of the ERA 1996 and/or alternatively, she contended that her dismissal was automatically unfair contrary to section 103A of that Act. (2) Detriment on grounds of having made protected and qualifying disclosures. (3) Disability related discrimination contrary to s.15 of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) and a failure to make reasonable adjustments contrary to s.20 EqA 2010.

The ET dismissed all her claims and she appealed to the EAT.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. On a detailed, but fair reading of the judgment and reasons it was held that the reasons complied with r.62(5) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. Some aspects of the reasons could have been set out more clearly, but, the requirements of that rule were met and the reasons were “Meek” compliant. Observations made regarding the requirements of judgment/reasons. The Tribunal had not erred in taking into consideration (when determining disputed issues of fact) relevant matters or disregarding irrelevant matters. The EAT was not satisfied that a serious procedural irregularity had occurred during the hearing which had led to the Tribunal seeing and considering a document which the Claimant’s side had not seen.