United Kingdom: Unfair dismissal due to lack of clear written policy or training on misconduct behaviour

In brief

The Court of Appeal has upheld the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s decision that an Ofsted inspector was unfairly dismissed after he brushed rain off a student’s face and hair. The act was misguided and unprofessional but there were never any safeguarding concerns or allegations of improper motive. In the absence of a “no-touching” policy or training on the matter, it was unfair to treat this incident as an act of gross misconduct resulting in summary dismissal.


Contents

Key takeaways

The decision is a good reminder to ensure that there are clear policies and guidance about what constitutes misconduct, which is supported by training. The absence of such policies will not mean that any sanction including dismissal is automatically unfair but, outside of “obvious” cases of gross misconduct, it will be harder to show that the dismissal is fair when you haven’t made clear the standards of behaviour you expect from your employees.

It will generally be unreasonable to “bump up” the severity of the conduct because of the employee’s lack of remorse or contrition. There may be cases in which a dismissal for less serious misconduct is fair where the employee persistently fails to recognise that they have done something wrong, which means there is a real risk that they will commit more serious misconduct in the future. However, this was not one of those cases. The employee here had said he would not repeat the mistake again. Although this was motivated by the “trouble that it had got him into” rather than because he thought he had done anything wrong, in the court’s view, motivation did not matter so long as the result of mitigating the risk of the behaviour being repeated was achieved.

For advice or to discuss what this means for you and your business, please contact your usual Baker McKenzie contact.

Case: Ofsted v Hewston, Court of Appeal

Contact Information
Mandy Li
Knowledge Lawyer at BakerMcKenzie
London
mandy.li@bakermckenzie.com
Kim Sartin
Partner at BakerMcKenzie
London
kim.sartin@bakermckenzie.com

Copyright © 2025 Baker & McKenzie. All rights reserved. Ownership: This documentation and content (Content) is a proprietary resource owned exclusively by Baker McKenzie (meaning Baker & McKenzie International and its member firms). The Content is protected under international copyright conventions. Use of this Content does not of itself create a contractual relationship, nor any attorney/client relationship, between Baker McKenzie and any person. Non-reliance and exclusion: All Content is for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal and regulatory developments. All summaries of the laws, regulations and practice are subject to change. The Content is not offered as legal or professional advice for any specific matter. It is not intended to be a substitute for reference to (and compliance with) the detailed provisions of applicable laws, rules, regulations or forms. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any action or refraining from taking any action based on any Content. Baker McKenzie and the editors and the contributing authors do not guarantee the accuracy of the Content and expressly disclaim any and all liability to any person in respect of the consequences of anything done or permitted to be done or omitted to be done wholly or partly in reliance upon the whole or any part of the Content. The Content may contain links to external websites and external websites may link to the Content. Baker McKenzie is not responsible for the content or operation of any such external sites and disclaims all liability, howsoever occurring, in respect of the content or operation of any such external websites. Attorney Advertising: This Content may qualify as “Attorney Advertising” requiring notice in some jurisdictions. To the extent that this Content may qualify as Attorney Advertising, PRIOR RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE A SIMILAR OUTCOME. Reproduction: Reproduction of reasonable portions of the Content is permitted provided that (i) such reproductions are made available free of charge and for non-commercial purposes, (ii) such reproductions are properly attributed to Baker McKenzie, (iii) the portion of the Content being reproduced is not altered or made available in a manner that modifies the Content or presents the Content being reproduced in a false light and (iv) notice is made to the disclaimers included on the Content. The permission to re-copy does not allow for incorporation of any substantial portion of the Content in any work or publication, whether in hard copy, electronic or any other form or for commercial purposes.