EAT rejects appearance of bias claim over judge who was school governor

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has rejected a claim that there was the appearance of bias when an employment judge who was a governor at a school in Surrey sat on a case involving another school in the county.

In Taylor v The Governing Body Of The Potters Gate CE Primary School (Practice and Procedure : Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity) [2015] UKEAT 0227_14_2702 the EAT said that applying the ruling in Porter v Magill it was necessary to:

• ascertain all the circumstances having a bearing on the suggestion that the judge was biased; and
• ask whether those circumstances would lead a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility that the judge was biased.

The EAT concluded that this was not a case involving any common policy or line (in contrast to the case of Hamilton v GMB) – “the employment judge had no prior dealings with any of those involved in the case and was unaware of any connection between the head teachers of the two schools”.

It said: “Although both schools had access to the same training and advisory services (provided by Babcock 4S), that did not change the position. Ultimately, having ascertained and scrutinised all the circumstances material to the suggestion that the employment judge was biased, the fair-minded and informed observer would not conclude that there was any possibility of bias in this case.”

The EAT added: “We think [counsel for Surrey] is right to see the factors relied on in this case as analogous to circumstances such as service or employment background or membership of a social or charitable body (see Locabail): life experiences that will not, without more, give rise to proper objection.

“Having scrutinised all the material facts in this case (individually and taken together), it is apparent that there is nothing more.

“We can understand that the claimant felt the need for assurance once she learned of the employment judge’s other role as a school governor for another Surrey school. Equally, however, we are satisfied that, on any objective assessment and once in possession of the relevant facts, no possibility of bias in fact arose in this case.”