Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Case lawEmployment lawDismissal

Harding v Hampshire County Council

by Personnel Today 1 Jan 2006
by Personnel Today 1 Jan 2006

Harding v Hampshire County Council

Unfair dismissal: disciplinary investigations

The EAT gives guidance on the tests which must be met for a disciplinary investigation to be considered reasonable.

Mr Harding was employed by the Council as a youth project worker. Serious allegations of misconduct made against Harding regarding his treatment of three boys were passed on to the police. Harding was arrested and interviewed, but later released.

During the police investigation it was alleged that Harding had accessed child pornography sites on a computer that a youth organisation had given him. The council suspended Harding. He was not charged by the police, but they gave the council a copy of the investigatory documents.

Mr Poynter of the council investigated whether there was evidence of gross misconduct by Harding, and referred to the documentation provided by the police and spoke with Harding and the police investigating officer. Poynter’s report was lengthy and detailed. It concluded that there was evidence of gross misconduct, that the matter should be referred to a disciplinary hearing and recommended that Harding’s employment be terminated summarily.

Harding was found guilty of gross misconduct by the disciplinary panel and was summarily dismissed.

Harding claimed unfair dismissal, saying that the council had not carried out a reasonable investigation and had not followed the criteria set out in British Home Stores v Burchill.

The tribunal rejected Harding’s claim.

On appeal, Harding argued that Poynter’s report had the effect of controlling and dictating the outcome of the disciplinary hearing. The EAT disagreed and said Poynter had been entitled to make recommendations in his report before referring the matter to the disciplinary panel; that all of the police papers had been included in the investigation; that Harding could have highlighted any deficiencies in the investigation at the disciplinary hearing and that the disciplinary panel did not follow all of Poynter’s recommendations.

It was also argued that it was wrong for the council not to reinvestigate the matter, but to rely on the investigation carried out by the police. The EAT stated that each case would need to be decided on its own facts.

Key points

Employers are obliged to thoroughly investigate allegations of gross misconduct and to comply with the general principles set out in British Home Stores v Burchill.

Where there are criminal charges against an employee, a ‘careful and conscientious’ investigation must be carried out (A v B [2003] IRLR 503).

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Employers will not be required to reinvestigate matters where it is reasonable for them to rely on a thorough police investigation. However, each case must be assessed on its own merits and reinvestigation may be necessary.

What you should do



  • Ensure you comply with your own and the statutory disciplinary procedure at all times
  • Satisfy yourself that, at the time at which you believe that the employee is guilty of misconduct, you have carried out as much investigation as is reasonable
  • If allegations of a criminal nature are involved, ensure a careful and conscientious investigation is carried out, by the police, the employer or a combination of the two.

Personnel Today

Personnel Today articles are written by an expert team of award-winning journalists who have been covering HR and L&D for many years. Some of our content is attributed to "Personnel Today" for a number of reasons, including: when numerous authors are associated with writing or editing a piece; or when the author is unknown (particularly for older articles).

previous post
Female mechanic sues Network Rail for sex discrimination
next post
Hutton pushes case for incapacity benefit reform

You may also like

Company director wins £15k after being told to...

4 Jul 2025

How can HR prepare for changes to the...

3 Jul 2025

Government publishes ‘roadmap’ for Employment Rights Bill

2 Jul 2025

Employers’ duty of care: keeping workers safe in...

27 Jun 2025

When will the Employment Rights Bill become law?

26 Jun 2025

Seven ways to prepare now for the Employment...

20 Jun 2025

Sleeping security officer wins £20k for unfair dismissal

16 Jun 2025

The employer strikes back: the rise of ‘quiet...

13 Jun 2025

Lawyers warn over impact of Employment Rights Bill...

13 Jun 2025

Racism claims have tripled and ‘Equality Act is...

12 Jun 2025

  • Empowering working parents and productivity during the summer holidays SPONSORED | Businesses play a...Read more
  • AI is here. Your workforce should be ready. SPONSORED | From content creation...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+