Headteacher dismissed for tapping her son's hand: unfair dismissal win after 17 years' service
A headteacher with 17 years' service was unfairly dismissed after tapping her 3-year-old son's hand to get his attention. The tribunal awarded £102,328.80, reduced by 20% for contributory fault.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #headteacher
- #safeguarding
- #physical-chastisement
- #parental-discipline
- #gross-misconduct
- #contributory-fault
Key facts
- The claimant tapped her 3-year-old son on the back of his hand with two fingers to get his attention after he played with hand sanitiser.
- The incident occurred after school hours on school premises, and the claimant was the headteacher and deputy safeguarding lead.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct, believing she had assaulted a child in a position of trust.
- The tribunal found the respondent did not have reasonable grounds to believe the claimant committed gross misconduct.
- The tribunal held the dismissal was outside the band of reasonable responses and therefore unfair.
- The claimant's remedy was reduced by 20% for contributory fault due to her role as headteacher.
Timeline
-
Incident with hand sanitiser
The claimant tapped her son's hand to get his attention after he played with hand sanitiser. Ms Bhagwandas witnessed the incident.
-
Complaint made
Ms Bhagwandas reported the incident to the CEO and completed a 'cause for concern' form, alleging the claimant smacked the child.
-
Claimant suspended
The claimant was suspended without details of the allegation. The LADO initiated procedures.
-
Police decide no further action
Police concluded the incident was reasonable chastisement and took no further action. The LADO considered the allegation substantiated.
-
Investigation report completed
Mr Pratt's report recommended a disciplinary case, finding the claimant likely tapped the child but did not smack him.
-
Disciplinary hearing
A panel heard evidence and decided to dismiss the claimant for gross misconduct.
-
Dismissal confirmed
The claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal hearing
The appeal panel upheld the dismissal, confirming gross misconduct.
-
Liability hearing begins
The tribunal heard evidence over four days.
-
Liability judgment
The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and set a remedy hearing for 16 January 2024.
-
Remedy hearing
The tribunal awarded the claimant £102,328.80, reduced by 20% for contributory fault.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the headteacher was unfairly dismissed for misconduct after tapping her son's hand, and whether the respondent had reasonable grounds to believe she committed gross misconduct.
The outcome
The tribunal found the headteacher was unfairly dismissed.
- The respondent did not have reasonable grounds to believe gross misconduct occurred; the tap was a minor, non-abusive act.
- Dismissal was outside the band of reasonable responses given the circumstances and the claimant's long service.
- Compensation: £102,328.80 total
- Basic award: £8,450.80
- Compensatory award: £93,878.00
- Reduced by 20% for contributory fault due to her role as headteacher.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must have reasonable grounds for believing gross misconduct occurred — a minor, non-abusive act does not justify dismissal.
- Long-serving employees are entitled to a more thorough process; a snap dismissal may be outside the band of reasonable responses.
- A reduction for contributory fault is possible if the employee's own conduct (e.g., as a safeguarding lead) contributed to the dismissal.
- Police and LADO decisions are relevant but not determinative; employers must conduct their own reasonable investigation.
This case shows how a single, minor incident can spiral into a dismissal when safeguarding concerns are raised, even when the employee has an unblemished 17-year record. The headteacher tapped her 3-year-old son's hand with two fingers to get his attention after he played with hand sanitiser — an act the tribunal found was reasonable chastisement and not abusive. Yet the trust treated it as gross misconduct, leading to summary dismissal.
What the employer did wrong
Arbor Academy Trust relied heavily on the report of a colleague who described the tap as a 'smack'. The tribunal found the investigation was reasonable in some respects, but the decision to dismiss was not. The panel failed to consider that the incident was minor, occurred after hours, and involved the headteacher's own child. Crucially, the trust did not have reasonable grounds to believe gross misconduct had occurred — a key requirement for a fair conduct dismissal.
Why the result matters
The case reinforces that even in safeguarding-sensitive roles, employers must apply proportionality. A headteacher with 17 years' service deserved more than a rushed dismissal based on a disputed account. The 20% reduction for contributory fault reflects that, as deputy safeguarding lead, she should have been more aware of the perception of her actions — but that did not make dismissal fair.
For employees in similar roles, this case highlights that a long service record and the absence of any prior concerns are powerful factors. Employers who ignore these and jump to dismissal risk paying significant compensation — here over £100,000.
Similar cases
Assistant headteacher dismissed for sending sexual message to child under duress from coercive partner
An assistant headteacher with 12 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after sending a sexual message to a child under duress from a coercive partner. The tribunal rejected her claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.
Care home manager unfairly dismissed after smoking at work: tribunal finds opportunistic motive
A Liverpool tribunal ruled that a care home manager with nine years' service was unfairly dismissed for smoking in the office, finding the real reason was antagonism after she raised a grievance. She was awarded £3,854.25, reduced by 50% for contributory fault.
Maths teacher dismissed for sharing personal number and test paper with student
A maths teacher with three years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after sharing his personal mobile number and a test paper with a student, and sending over 50 emails to students outside school hours. The Employment Tribunal upheld the dismissal.
Swimming teacher dismissed for 'it looks like you work out' comment to pupil
A swimming teacher with 8 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after telling a 10-year-old pupil 'it looks like you work out'. The Leeds tribunal upheld the employer's decision, citing safeguarding concerns.