29-year career ended over flawed sexual harassment investigation: dismissal unfair
A country director with 29 years' service was unfairly dismissed after a flawed investigation into a sexual harassment allegation. The tribunal ordered his re-engagement.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by the British Council from 1 September 1990 until his dismissal on 7 May 2019.
- On 16 December 2018, the claimant hosted a party at his Rome flat; a female embassy employee (ZZ) alleged he sexually harassed her.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct based on a belief that he sexually touched ZZ.
- The tribunal found the investigation was inadequate, with serious oversights and unreasonable assumptions.
- The tribunal concluded the dismissal was unfair and ordered re-engagement.
- The tribunal found that the alleged sexual assault did not occur on the balance of probabilities.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment with the British Council.
-
Appointed Country Director Italy
Claimant became the most senior British Council representative in Italy.
-
Party at claimant's flat
Claimant hosted a family Christmas brunch; ZZ attended and later alleged sexual harassment.
-
ZZ emailed ambassador
ZZ emailed the British ambassador describing the alleged incident.
-
Formal complaint made
Mr O'Flaherty sent a formal complaint summary to the British Council.
-
ZZ interviewed
Investigator Rebecca Walton interviewed ZZ.
-
Claimant interviewed
Claimant was interviewed without prior notice of the allegations.
-
Investigation report completed
Ms Walton completed her investigation report.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Claimant attended a disciplinary hearing before Ms Ewart-Biggs.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal rejected
Sir Ciarán Devane rejected the claimant's appeal.
-
Liability hearing started
Employment tribunal hearing on unfair dismissal claim.
-
Liability judgment
Tribunal found dismissal unfair.
-
Remedy hearing started
Hearing to decide remedy, including re-engagement.
-
Re-engagement order
Tribunal ordered re-engagement on specified terms.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the British Council had reasonable grounds to believe the claimant sexually harassed a colleague and whether it carried out a reasonable investigation before dismissing him for gross misconduct.
The outcome
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair. The investigation was flawed: key witnesses were not interviewed, the complainant's credibility was not properly tested, and the decision-maker relied on assumptions rather than evidence. The tribunal ordered the claimant's re-engagement.
No compensation was awarded as the remedy was re-engagement.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must conduct thorough investigations into serious allegations, including interviewing all relevant witnesses and testing the complainant's account.
- A long-serving employee with an unblemished record is entitled to a particularly fair process before dismissal.
- Decision-makers should not rely on assumptions or incomplete evidence when forming a belief about misconduct.
A career ended by a flawed investigation
After 29 years of service, a country director for the British Council was dismissed following a single allegation of sexual harassment made by an embassy employee after a Christmas party at his home. The tribunal found that the investigation into the allegation was so inadequate that the dismissal was unfair.
The case highlights the importance of a proper investigative process, especially when the allegation is serious and the employee has a long, unblemished record. The tribunal noted that the investigator failed to interview key witnesses, did not properly explore inconsistencies in the complainant's account, and the decision-maker relied on unreasonable assumptions.
What went wrong
The investigation was led by a single investigator who did not interview the claimant before forming initial conclusions. The claimant was interviewed without prior notice of the specific allegations. The investigator also failed to obtain relevant messages and emails that might have shed light on the complainant's credibility. The decision-maker accepted the investigator's report without questioning its shortcomings.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that even in sensitive cases involving sexual misconduct allegations, employers must follow a fair process. The tribunal's order for re-engagement is unusual and reflects the seriousness of the procedural failings. For employees, it shows that a flawed investigation can render a dismissal unfair, even if the employer had a genuine belief in the misconduct.
Similar cases
Security guard dismissed after alleged theft: no protected disclosure
A security guard with only weeks of service was dismissed after being accused of taking items without permission. The tribunal rejected his claims of protected disclosure detriment and notice pay, but awarded £627 for missing written particulars.
Dismissed over defamation claim he didn't make: a foregone conclusion
A maintenance technician was unfairly dismissed after being accused of defaming his employer. The tribunal found the investigation was minimal, the outcome predetermined, and the appeal conducted by the managing director's brother-in-law. He was awarded £10,896.94.
20-year employee dismissed for performance without proper process: unfair dismissal
A payroll administrator with 20 years' service was unfairly dismissed after a flawed capability process that lacked warnings, investigation, and an appeal. The tribunal awarded £28,333, including a 25% uplift for failing to follow the ACAS Code.
Care assistant unfairly dismissed after flawed investigation into resident incidents
A care assistant with two years' service was unfairly dismissed for alleged gross misconduct after a flawed investigation. The tribunal awarded £27,316, including a 25% ACAS uplift for the employer's failure to follow the ACAS Code.