Beaulieu Convent School has failed in its bid to have a former employee’s unfair dismissal and discrimination claims thrown out, as a tribunal ordered further searches for documents relating to the dispute.
Sarah Hansford alleges that she was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against because of her age and sex during a redundancy exercise in 2025.
The Jersey Employment and Discrimination Tribunal rejected both the school’s application to strike out her claim and Mrs Hansford’s attempt to have its defence removed.
The ruling did not determine whether her dismissal was unfair or discriminatory.
The interim hearing examined disagreements over documents, including the school’s statement that it had no document evidencing the financial rationale for the redundancy or showing the cost of its new structure.
Deputy chair Mark Salter ordered further searches for governors’ minutes between May and November 2025, a survey-analysis presentation, senior leadership meeting records, and emails concerning a cross-post-16 meeting.
He also required a signed statement from a named person with knowledge of the searches, confirming whether documents listed as missing or non-existent existed and, where they did not or could not be found, explaining why.
The tribunal found that the school had failed to comply with three procedural requirements: some documents were supplied a day late, the required confirmation had not been provided through someone with knowledge, and the hearing’s document file had not been agreed by the deadline.
However, Mr Salter found that its conduct fell “well short” of the threshold for striking out its defence.
The school’s representative said the proceedings had caused “hurt and stress” and involved some six weeks of work – half a school term.
Mr Salter acknowledged shortcomings in Mrs Hansford’s approach, including serious allegations that she had largely failed to support with particulars. But he also recognised that she had lost legal representation during the proceedings.
He described her conduct as “voluminous, repetitive and at times misdirected”, but concluded that this did not amount to conducting proceedings scandalously, unreasonably or vexatiously.
Questions about the authenticity of disputed documents were reserved for the final hearing, with no findings made at this stage.
