Suspension is not a neutral act

Agoreyo v London Borough of Lambeth

The High Court has held in this case that the suspension of a teacher amounted to a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.

In this case, a teacher was suspended because of the force she used with two children. She had not been asked for her response to the allegations and there was no evidence of consideration given to any alternative to suspension. She resigned the same day.

The Court held, following two other cases, that suspension was not a neutral act, at least in the context of a qualified professional in a vocation such as a teacher. Taking into account the statutory guidance for local authorities, it was noted that a knee-jerk reaction must be avoided and that suspension must not be the default position. The reason given for the suspension was not the protection of children, but to "allow the investigation to be conducted fairly".

The Court concluded that suspension was adopted as the default position and it was a knee-jerk reaction. It therefore amounted to a fundamental breach of contract and this was not undermined by a resignation in friendly terms. Mrs Agoreyo therefore succeeded with her claim.

In Practice

This case is another demonstration of how employers have to be careful when considering suspension. Even though the local authority was caught out by its own guidance, nevertheless this case follows many others in recent years that show the courts and tribunals are only happy for employers to suspend as a last resort. This is because, once suspended, an employee is much more likely not to be able to return to work, due to the stigma attached to the suspension, irrespective of whether the allegations against them are well-founded.

At Frettens, all of our solicitors offer a free initial meeting or chat on the phone to answer your questions. If this article raises issues for you or your business, please call us on 01202 499255 and Paul, Kate or Andrew will be happy to discuss it with you.