The Court of Appeal has upheld a decision that Ofsted unfairly dismissed an inspector for briefly touching a student’s forehead and shoulder while checking on their wellbeing. Despite having a 12-year unblemished record, he was dismissed for gross misconduct, even though Ofsted had no ‘no touch’ policy, relevant training, or prior guidance on physical contact.

The ruling reinforces key unfair dismissal principles: employers must provide clear policies on expected conduct, apply disciplinary procedures fairly, and ensure dismissal is a proportionate response. Without clear rules in place, employees cannot reasonably be expected to know their actions might lead to termination.

This case serves as a reminder for organisations to review their workplace policies, ensure proper training, and consider alternative disciplinary measures before resorting to dismissal.

In the case of Mr Easton vs. the Home Office, the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the dismissal of Mr Easton, who failed to disclose his previous dismissal for gross misconduct when applying for a role with the UK’s Border Force. 

The Tribunal found that the omission of such information, even without being explicitly asked, was a serious integrity issue, particularly given the sensitive nature of the Border Force role.

The case highlights the importance of transparency in recruitment processes, especially for roles requiring a high level of trust and integrity.