The High Court has ruled that a teacher repudiated a settlement agreement by withdrawing from an inquiry into allegations against him, bringing the agreement to an end. The court refused the teacher’s requested relief, including damages and an order allowing him to resume teaching duties.
In a judgment delivered on 27 October 2010, Miss Justice Laffoy said the defendant had not breached the settlement. The ruling followed an earlier judgment, delivered on 21 July, which found that the inquiry adjudicator was wrong to allow complaints concerning D.M. to proceed insofar as they overlapped with allegations underlying criminal charges of which the teacher had been acquitted. The court said the extent of that overlap had not been clear.
The teacher had been suspended on full pay in March 1997. Under settlement terms agreed in May 2009, the suspension was lifted and an inquiry was established to determine whether the allegations were well founded and whether he posed a threat to children. If the adjudicator found the allegations unfounded and no threat, the defendant had agreed he could resume teaching at the earliest opportunity. If the adjudicator found allegations well founded or a threat, the teacher had agreed to resign.
The inquiry began in December 2009. After the adjudicator ruled on the evidence and acquittal issues, the teacher’s counsel said they were unhappy with the ruling and would take the matter elsewhere. The court interpreted the exchange as an express renunciation of the teacher’s obligation to participate through to the inquiry’s conclusion. It said he could instead have sought an adjournment while challenging the ruling in court, or continued and challenged any adverse finding later.
The court held that the adjudicator’s incorrect ruling did not amount to a breach by the defendant, who was not responsible for the adjudicator’s independent decision. It concluded that the teacher’s withdrawal was a repudiatory breach of the settlement, which the defendant was entitled to accept.
As a result, the settlement ended and the teacher’s suspension was reinstated under the employment position that existed before the settlement. The court said the matters underlying the suspension remained unresolved and there was no basis to order his return to teaching. It rejected the requested declarations and orders, including damages for breach of contract.
The court did not decide whether the withdrawal amounted to gross misconduct or breached the teacher’s employment contract or its implied mutual trust and confidence covenant. It said the evidence before it was insufficient to determine those employment issues. The teacher’s employment contract remained in force, and the court said the parties were “back to square one”.