An ex-head teacher of a Croydon High School, who was dismissed over gross misconduct over financial mismanagement in 2021, had his claims of racial discrimination dismissed by a tribunal on September 7.

Paul Mundy-Castle, the former head teacher of Woodcote High School in Coulsdon, Croydon was sacked in July 2021 after a disciplinary panel upheld allegations against him for: “financial mismanagement” and “failure to disclose personal relations with external companies”.

Mundy-Castle subsequently submitted a claim against the school which alleged: “race discrimination, race-related harassment, victimisation, whistleblowing detriment, automatically unfair dismissal (section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996), unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal.”

However, the employment tribunal panel dismissed Mundy-Castle’s unfair dismissal claims after reading through 4,000 pages of documents and 150 witness statements. 

The tribunal was told the former Great Britain basketball international allegedly did not provide governors at Woodcote High School with correct records of spending and signed off on expenses, which exceeded the spending cap of £25,000, without the approval of the board of governors. 

The panel were also told the governors later learned Mundy-Castle had already committed to the deals which allegedly included spending £38,000 on Wi-Fi equipment – which he allegedly claimed the governors had signed off on.

The deals also included £48,000 for a new canteen for the school and £53,000 for desks, also above expenditure cap approved by the governors of £25,000.  

Initial concerns about the overspending were supposedly voiced by board governors in February 2020. 

At the south London hearing, Mundy-Castle allegedly presented himself as a “superstar head teacher,” with an “impeccable record before his employment” with Woodcote High School.

However, the tribunal said: “The picture was probably more complex.” 

In a public statement, Mundy-Castle said: “I received the negative employment tribunal outcome on September 7, 2024. The decision was clearly and demonstrably wrong. I dispute the tribunal’s decision and am presently considering my legal options.” 

“The monies expended by the respondent under my management were undoubtedly of good value and approved by the respondent both before the builders were instructed and retrospectively,” he continued.

Mundy-Castle also alleged racism was one of the underlying reasons for his dismissal: “The real reasons I was dismissed were the unlawful activities that I whistleblew about and racism.” 

He said: “It transpires that white/non-black staff can commit gross misconduct but when a black headteacher challenges that, he is then wrongly and unlawfully dismissed – that was my perspective. The tribunal however saw the matter differently.” 

Islam Choudhury, a barrister, was instructed to investigate a grievance brought by Mundy-Castle against a board governor in 2020. Choudhury, however, concluded that the ex-head teacher’s evidence was “deliberately misleading, as it completely misrepresents what was actually said and by whom.”

Choudhury also argued that his findings in the Mundy-Castle case allegedly demonstrated: “matters escalated wholly as a result of [the claimant’s] poor behaviour and he is entirely to blame for what occurred.”

The tribunal also took a close look at a comment made by a member of the school’s disciplinary panel where they alleged Mundy-Castle was “playing the race card“.

In response to this claim, the tribunal stated: “If we had found a difference in treatment and a difference in race, this is potentially the sort of thing that might have been “something more” that would have shifted the burden. We have not found a meaningful difference in treatment between the claimant and the comparators. They are not in genuinely comparable circumstances. We conclude that the claimant has not established facts from which we could conclude that the decision to dismiss was on racial grounds or was related to race.”

They continued: “Even if the burden were to shift, we are satisfied on the evidence that the reason why the respondent dismissed the claimant was that it genuinely believed he was guilty of gross misconduct. It has provided a non-discriminatory explanation for the treatment.”