Taylor v The Governing Body Of The Potters Gate CE Primary School

Apparent bias requires an objective assessment of all material circumstances. The question is whether a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias.

A judicial office-holder’s voluntary role in the same broad sector as a party does not, without more, establish apparent bias. Actual ignorance of an alleged connection may dispel concern. General geographical links, shared advisory services and sectoral experience are insufficient where there is no direct connection, common policy or interest relevant to the issues being decided.

Disclosure of a potentially relevant voluntary role is prudent, but a failure to disclose does not of itself invalidate the decision.

The Claimant, a teacher employed by the Respondent school governing body, brought claims for constructive unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, less favourable treatment as a part-time worker and breach of contract. The Employment Tribunal dismissed all claims except a wages claim.

After the decision, the Claimant learned that the Employment Judge was a governor, and later chair, of another Surrey school. She appealed on the sole surviving ground that this created an appearance of bias, particularly because the schools had some connections through Surrey County Council and Babcock 4S advisory and training services.

The central issue was whether those circumstances would lead a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility that the Employment Judge was biased.

1. Appeal dismissed. Applying Porter v Magill, the Tribunal first had to ascertain all circumstances bearing on apparent bias and then decide whether a fair-minded and informed observer would find a real possibility of bias.

2. The Employment Judge’s position as a governor, or chair of governors, of another school did not itself create apparent bias. Judges inevitably have life experience which may superficially relate to cases before them. Something more is required, and the assessment is necessarily fact-sensitive.

3. Several alleged connections could not have influenced the Judge because he did not know of them. These included any contact between the schools’ head teachers. His lack of actual knowledge therefore dispelled any concern arising from those matters.

4. The schools’ shared location in Surrey, potential access to County Council legal services and use of Babcock 4S services did not create a relevant common interest. Unlike Hamilton v GMB, the case did not concern adherence to a shared policy or line. There was no common legal strategy, contact with the relevant Babcock consultant, or connection with the Respondent’s governors.

5. The relationship between a school governor and a head teacher did not mean that a governor held a brief for head teachers generally. Governors remain independent. The need to assess credibility, including that of a head teacher and governors from another school, did not alter that conclusion.

6. It would have been better for the Employment Judge to disclose his school-governor role at the outset, so that the parties could investigate and address any concern. However, non-disclosure did not of itself vitiate the Employment Tribunal’s decision. Considering all factors together, there was no real possibility of bias.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Appeal dismissed. The Employment Tribunal decision was not vitiated by apparent bias.
• Employment Tribunal: The Reading Employment Tribunal dismissed the constructive unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, part-time worker and most contract claims, allowing only a claim for unpaid wages from September to December 2009.