V Baker v The Governing Body of St Charles RC School

An employment tribunal’s reasons must explain its resolution of the principal disputed issues and how it applied the law to its findings. Read fairly and as a whole, they need not address every evidential contention; their detail should be proportionate to the case.

Unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal require distinct assessments. For unfair dismissal, the question is whether the employer acted reasonably under the statutory test. For wrongful dismissal, the tribunal decides whether the employee in fact committed a repudiatory breach. It may assess the conduct cumulatively, drawing on its findings and credibility assessments, if it explains why the conduct justified summary dismissal.

The appellant was the headteacher of the respondent school. After a disciplinary process, she was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct. The Employment Tribunal dismissed her claims of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal in a judgment sent to the parties on 10 March 2023.

She appealed on the ground that the Tribunal had not adequately explained its treatment of alleged witness collusion, asserted investigative deficiencies across six allegations, and the separate contractual basis for dismissing her wrongful dismissal claim. The central issue was whether the Tribunal’s reasons sufficiently explained its conclusions on both claims.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Tribunal’s reasons, read fairly and as a whole, adequately explained its decision. Reasons must identify the critical issues, summarise essential findings and explain how the law was applied. They need not address every item of evidence or every submission. Their detail should be proportionate to the length and complexity of the claim. The Tribunal addressed the principal disputed points, including the collusion allegation and the investigation of each allegation. Its reasons enabled the appellant to understand why her case failed (Meek v City of Birmingham District Council, [1987] IRLR 250; English v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd, [2003] IRLR 710; Greenwood v NWF Retail Ltd, [2011] ICR 896; paras 23–25, 28–37, 45).

2. Distinct dismissal tests. In an unfair dismissal claim, the Tribunal asks whether the employer acted reasonably under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996; it does not substitute its own view of the appropriate sanction. In a wrongful dismissal claim, it must decide whether the employee in fact committed conduct amounting to a repudiatory breach. The Tribunal correctly directed itself to that distinction. The requirement to separate the two inquiries was material to the appeal (Co-Operative Group Ltd v Baddeley, [2014] EWCA Civ 658; paras 21–22, 38–41).

3. Wrongful dismissal assessment. A tribunal need not make a separate finding on every allegation if it determines whether the misconduct occurred and assesses the employee’s conduct as a whole. It may draw on its findings about the evidence and credibility, provided its reasons explain why the conduct amounted to a fundamental breach justifying dismissal without notice. The Tribunal found that the misconduct occurred, raised serious safeguarding concerns, and went to the root of the employment contract. Its concise reasons adequately explained its contractual conclusion. The expression “very root” describes a fundamental and repudiatory breach (Laws v London Chronicle (Indicator Newspapers) Ltd, [1959] 1 WLR 698; paras 40–44).

1. Employment Appeal Tribunal: In V Baker v The Governing Body of St Charles RC School [2026] EAT 158 , the appeal was dismissed.
2. Employment Tribunal: Employment Judge Dennehy dismissed the claims of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal in a judgment sent to the parties on 10 March 2023.