header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
13 April 2018 / Stephen Levinson
Issue: 7788 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Burchell & judicial jostling

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7788_levison

Stephen Levinson reflects on the uncertain future of the test for fair dismissals

  • Burchell & the band of reasonable decisions test.
  • Should a full panel replace the prevailing approach of making most unfair dismissal cases the province of judges sitting alone?

Mischievous and disingenuous are not adjectives usually applied to decisions of the Supreme Court. In their comments on what constitutes a fair dismissal made in the case of Reilly v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council [2018] UKSC 16, [2018] All ER (D) 82 (Mar) however, these words will be applied by some with a certain amount of justification.

What was the case about?

A female head teacher of a primary school had a close (non-sexual) relationship with a man who was convicted of making indecent images of children. Having taken advice she did not disclose the relationship or conviction to the school. The governors, however, later became aware of the relationship, suspended the head teacher and then dismissed her for the non-disclosure. A claim for unfair dismissal failed as did appeals

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll