KB-2023-003302 - [2025] EWHC 1628 (KB)
Fecha: 27-Jun-2025
Conclusions
Relief
I invite the parties to agree an order in light of this judgment and to agree the terms of relief. If they cannot agree, I will resolve the disagreement, either on the basis of succinct written submissions or, if the parties prefer, a short hearing on relief. I could accommodate such a hearing at 2pm on 27 June 2025, if that suited the parties.
In the embargoed draft judgment, I expressed a hope that the Defendant would consider whether they could agree a form of relief that would not require the Claimant to go through a new Adjudication Panel hearing. No such agreement was reached. Instead, the parties have agreed an order that provides for a further hearing before an Adjudication Panel. In light of that fact, I have removed, from the final draft of this judgment, observations I made in the embargoed draft about the impact of the sanctions to date on the Claimant. As there is to be a further hearing, I do not think it would be helpful or appropriate for me to say anything relevant to sanction. The decision on sanction will be for that new Adjudication Panel, not me.
In conclusion, for the reasons set out above, the claim succeeds in part.
- Heading
- Rory Dunlop KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
- The contract
- Implied terms
- Factual Background
- The allegations and documentary evidence before the Adjudication Panel at the start of the hearing
- The hearing before the Adjudication Panel – Day 1 and fact-finding
- Day 2 – the findings on the allegations and the submissions on misconduct and impairment
- The Adjudication Panel decision on misconduct and impairment
- Day 3 and the decision on sanction
- The Appeal
- The pleaded claim
- Legal framework
- Submissions
- Discussion
- The first issue – the conclusion that the hug was sexually motivated
- The second issue – the treatment of the evidence as to insight, remediation and risk of repetition, including the evidence of Dr Wilkinson
- The third issue - sanction
- Conclusions