Former chief exec loses JR over dismissal after elected mayor took office

A former local authority chief executive has lost a judicial review action over her dismissal after the council changed to having an elected mayor.

Sheila Lock had joined Leicester City Council as its Director of Children’s Services in January 2006. In January 2008 she was promoted to temporary chief executive and confirmed in that post in August 2008. Her contract as chief executive also said that she was the council’s head of paid service.

Sir Peter Soulsby was elected as Leicester’s first directly elected City Mayor in May 2011. Part of his platform included the proposed abolition of the post and role of chief executive.

In the meantime Lock had been subjected at the end of 2010 to a sustained campaign of harassment over four years from an employee of the council. That employee was subsequently convicted of harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1998 and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment.

The claimant had been off work for a number of weeks owing to the stress relating to the abuse. She had returned for 2-3 days a week for a period in February and March 2011, since when she had not returned to work.

Leicester knew that her incapacity was owing to the work-related stress, having been notified by its occupational health physician that this was the reason for her being off work.

After the election on 6 May, Lock was told of intentions to consult on the proposals for the abolition of the post of chief executive.

On 16 May Soulsby confirmed at a press conference his proposal to abolish the role and to remove Lock from her office. He also announced plans to review every part of the council’s senior management and to start a procedure for identifying a suitable candidate to act as head of paid service.

A consultation meeting was held on 23 May which Lock did not attend but at which she was represented by her solicitors. The next day she submitted a complaint by way of grievance against the City Mayor and the Director of Human Resources.

On 2 June, the council’s employees’ committee considered a two-page business case on abolishing the role of chief executive as well as other reports on the management restructuring and making Lock redundant. The committee resolved the proposals should proceed.

Lock’s solicitors were informed of the outcome by letter on 3 June 2011. Her objections to her proposed redundancy were submitted on 16 June and responded to by Leicester on 23 June.

A further meeting of the employees’ committee was held on 29 June to consider whether it should support a proposal to abolish or ‘delete’ the post of chief executive.

It was also noted that a special full council meeting would be arranged in order to approve the decision to delete the post of chief executive, firstly in accordance with the statutory regulations applicable to deletion of the post of head of paid service and secondly to act as the appeal stage in relation to the committee’s decision.

The Director of Human Resources wrote to Lock on 8 July giving – or purporting to give – her four months’ notice of dismissal by reason of redundancy.

The letter was headed ‘Notice of Redundancy’ and suggested – amongst other things – that Lock’s employment with the council would end on 10 November 2011, by reason of redundancy subject to approval by full council. It asked Lock to treat the letter as formal notice of redundancy.

Lock formally appealed. Her appeal and Leicester’s response were considered at a meeting of the full council on 4-5 August and dismissed.

HHJ Roger Kaye QC, who heard the judicial review case in the Administrative Court in Leeds, said: “It is clear there was a very full and anxious debate extending over seven hours and lasting from 5 pm to just after midnight.”

The full council resolved to dismiss Lock’s appeal against the abolition of the post of chief executive, to approve her dismissal by reason of redundancy as a result of the deletion of the post of chief executive, and to appoint the deputy chief executive as temporary head of paid service pending the outcome of the senior management review.

Lock launched judicial review proceedings, seeking to quash the decision to dismiss her, reinstatement and damages.

At the heart of Lock v Leicester City Council [2012] EWHC 2058 was whether the dismissals were effective or – as she claimed – unlawful. 

Lock’s case was based principally on the 8 July letter, in which – she argued – the council sought to dismiss her from the post of chief executive and from her functions as head of paid service.

The former chief executive argued that her dismissal was unlawful, not in accordance with the relevant provisions and procedure set out in Schedule 1 to the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) Regulations 2001.

This was on the basis that it purported to dismiss her before the full council had approved the proposal to abolish the role of head of paid service.

Lock also claimed that the local authority had acted in contravention of her human rights under the European Convention of Human Rights in breach of s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. She relied specifically on Article 6 (the right to a fair hearing) and Article 8 (the right to respect for private life).

Judge Kaye rejected the claim.

“Despite the infelicitous wording of the letter of 8 July, there has been no material irregularity, unlawfulness, unfairness or irrationality in the decision to dismiss [Lock] as chief executive and as a person who was the designated head of paid service,” he said.

“The claimant had a full opportunity to make representations to the council which considered and debated them carefully and at length.”

The judge decided that the case was not like that of Sharon Shoesmith in R (Shoesmith) v Ofsted & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 64, with the latter’s role as Director of Children’s Services a wholly statutory one under the Children Act 2004.

Lock had also commenced proceedings in the Employment Tribunal. These proceedings were stayed pending the outcome of the application for judicial review.

Judge Kaye said nothing in his judgment should affect the substantive merits of Lock’s application to the Tribunal.

A Leicester City Council spokesman said: "The council can confirm that judgment in relation to judicial review proceedings brought against it by its former chief executive in respect of her redundancy has now been handed down.

"The application was unsuccessful and was dismissed by a judge sitting in the High Court in Leeds.  In view of the possibility of an appeal it would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage."