Headteacher dismissed for sharing pupil data: unfair dismissal due to flawed investigation
A headteacher was unfairly dismissed after sharing sensitive pupil data with her husband, but the tribunal found she would have been dismissed anyway with a fair process. No compensation was awarded due to contributory conduct.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #data-breach
- #gross-misconduct
- #headteacher
- #pastoral-support
- #third-party
- #acas-code-uplift
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Headteacher from September 2015 until dismissal on 6 October 2020.
- The claimant sent emails containing personal and sensitive pupil data to her husband, Canon Ivan Aquilina, for his opinion or comment.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct arising from inappropriate distribution of sensitive and confidential emails.
- The investigation was flawed: the investigating officer had prior involvement, did not interview potential supporting witnesses, and relied on a biased witness.
- The tribunal found that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed anyway with 100% probability if a fair procedure had been followed.
- The claimant's conduct was blameworthy and contributed to dismissal, leading to a 50% reduction in the basic award.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Mrs Aquilina commenced employment as Headteacher at St Thomas' Catholic Primary School.
-
First disciplinary matter begins
Following lockdown, Mrs Aquilina supported a family and was later suspended for inappropriate conduct and failure to maintain boundaries.
-
First disciplinary outcome
A disciplinary panel upheld misconduct and gross misconduct charges but issued a final written warning instead of dismissal.
-
Data breach discovered
Ms Boniface, while reviewing a SAR, found emails from Mrs Aquilina to Canon Aquilina containing personal data, which she considered a data breach.
-
Investigation report
Ms Boniface reported 61 potential data breaches to Mr Harris, classifying nine as high risk.
-
Suspension
Mrs Aquilina was suspended and interviewed by Ms Boniface as part of the disciplinary investigation.
-
Investigation report completed
Ms Boniface produced a formal investigation report.
-
Dismissal
A disciplinary hearing chaired by Mr Powis upheld the allegations and dismissed Mrs Aquilina with immediate effect.
-
Dismissal confirmed in writing
The dismissal decision was confirmed by letter.
-
Appeal hearing
An appeal hearing was held, chaired by Dr Jane Overbury.
-
Appeal dismissed
The appeal panel upheld the dismissal decision.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the headteacher's dismissal for gross misconduct (sharing confidential pupil data via email) was fair, and whether any compensation should be reduced because she would have been dismissed anyway or contributed to her own dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claim for unfair dismissal but awarded no compensation. The key reasons were:
- The investigation was procedurally flawed: the investigating officer had prior involvement in the case, did not interview potential supporting witnesses, and relied on a biased witness.
- However, the tribunal found that if a fair procedure had been followed, the headteacher would have been dismissed with 100% probability (Polkey reduction).
- Additionally, her conduct was blameworthy and contributed to the dismissal, leading to a 50% reduction in the basic award.
Compensation breakdown:
- Basic award: £0 (reduced by 50% for contributory fault, but no basic award was calculated as the Polkey reduction eliminated any compensatory award)
- Compensatory award: £0 (100% Polkey reduction)
- Total award: £0
Lessons & takeaways
- Ensure investigators are impartial and have no prior involvement in the case to avoid findings of bias.
- Interview all relevant witnesses, including those who might support the employee, to demonstrate a reasonable investigation.
- A flawed process can lead to a finding of unfair dismissal, but if the outcome would have been the same anyway, compensation may be reduced to zero.
- Employees who share confidential data without authorisation risk dismissal, even if they have a good reason, and may be found to have contributed to their own dismissal.
A headteacher's data breach leads to dismissal
A headteacher with six years' service was dismissed after sending emails containing personal and sensitive pupil data to her husband, a canon in the Catholic Church. The school's trust, Kent Catholic Schools’ Partnership, treated this as gross misconduct and dismissed her without notice. The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair, but the headteacher received no compensation because she would have been dismissed anyway and her own conduct contributed to the outcome.
What went wrong in the investigation
The tribunal identified several flaws in the investigation. The investigating officer had already been involved in a previous disciplinary matter involving the headteacher, which raised concerns about impartiality. She also failed to interview witnesses who could have supported the headteacher's case, and relied heavily on a witness who was not independent. These errors meant the dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses.
Why no compensation was awarded
Despite the unfair process, the tribunal applied a 100% Polkey reduction, meaning the headteacher would have been fairly dismissed if a proper procedure had been followed. The data breach was serious, and sharing confidential information with a third party—even a spouse—was a clear breach of trust. Additionally, the headteacher's conduct was found to be blameworthy, leading to a 50% reduction in the basic award. Since the basic award was already eliminated by the Polkey reduction, the total compensation was zero.
Key takeaway for employers and employees
This case highlights the importance of a fair investigation, even when the underlying misconduct is serious. Employers must ensure investigators are impartial and consider all relevant evidence. For employees, sharing confidential data without authorisation is a high-risk act that can justify dismissal, and any procedural flaws may not result in compensation if the outcome would have been the same.
Similar cases
30-year employee dismissed for gross misconduct without any disciplinary procedure: unfair dismissal
A tribunal found that Dunwood Specialties Limited unfairly dismissed a long-serving employee after failing to follow any disciplinary process, but reduced compensation by 80% because the employee would likely have been dismissed anyway.
Warehouse operative unfairly dismissed after mitigation ignored in conduct case
An employment tribunal found ASDA unfairly dismissed a warehouse operative with 18 years' service after failing to investigate his mitigation evidence, awarding £14,817 in compensation.
Area manager dismissed for editing timesheet: procedural failures led to unfair dismissal finding
An area manager was unfairly dismissed after editing a timesheet, but the tribunal found the investigation was flawed and the disciplinary process lacked proper notice. He was awarded £8,026 after reductions for contributory conduct and a Polkey finding.
PCV driver dismissed after failing breath tests: flawed appeal but dismissal largely upheld
A PCV driver who failed three breath alcohol tests was unfairly dismissed due to a flawed appeal, but the tribunal found she would have been dismissed anyway and reduced compensation by 75% for contributory conduct.