In July 2024, a former British Council worker won her case of unfair dismissal, harassment and discrimination in the employment tribunal after having been sexually harassed and stalked by the Country Director Morocco, Tony Reilly, the most senior employee in the organisation in the country.
The employee (who shall be referred to as KJ due to the allegations being captured by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and therefore subject to a restricted reporting order) was represented by South West law firm Stephens Scown LLP. She raised concerns about Mr Reilly’s behaviour but was let down by her employer in a series of unjustifiable denials and attempts to cover up evidence.
KJ resigned from her role as Teaching Centre Cluster Lead in Morocco after an investigation into a grievance she had raised concluded that Mr Reilly had behaved inappropriately but hadn’t committed sexual harassment.
This was despite overwhelming evidence of Reilly touching her without consent, following her to places where he knew she would be present, including her home, breaking into her house, and sending messages and images on WhatsApp expressing intimate thoughts. The individual responsible for this conduct was twice KJ’s age and the most senior employee for the British Council in Morocco, with overall responsibility for KJ’s welfare.
KJ said, “What I experienced at the British Council, both the sexual harassment itself and, when I reported it, the organisation’s deeply flawed response, changed my life irrevocably.
“The Tribunal’s judgment provides some relief in its condemnation of the British Council’s handling of my complaints. It does not reverse the profound impact that this experience and the long wait for justice have had on my personal life, professional life, and mental health. I hope, however, that it will go some way to preventing and protecting others from similar mistreatment.”
Finding in favour of the claimant, the Tribunal were scathing in their Judgment of the British Council’s handling of KJ’s concerns and criticising the predatory actions of the Country Director. They found that KJ had made it clear she did not wish to be subjected to the advances she experienced, and that the British Council had suppressed material information to dismiss her sexual harassment complaint. It had also failed to put adequate safeguards in place for her, resulting in her having to move house, all while prioritising the Country Director’s welfare over that of KJ.
The Tribunal found the British Council to be, “fundamentally deceptive”, “not sustainable or credible (in their evidence)”, and to have, “a reticence to uphold findings of sexual harassment in the face of compelling evidence.”
It added that “the most troubling aspect of the decision for the Tribunal is that it implies that a woman who engages in flirting at a point in time gives consent to be harassed, stalked, and assaulted until such time as she withdraws her consent in writing,” referring to an email KJ had written to Reilly asking him to stop his behaviour after attempts to communicate this message in person and via WhatsApp had failed.
Joe Nicholls, Partner in Stephens Scown’s Employment team, has represented KJ throughout the legal proceedings along with Carrianne Matta, Associate Solicitor and their team. They provided advice and support to KJ throughout, focusing the dispute on the wrongdoing from Mr Reilly and those that investigated KJ’s concerns at the British Council. Chris Milsom of Cloisters Chambers was instructed by Stephens Scown as the barrister providing advocacy representation in the case.
Speaking about the result, Joe Nicholls said, “We are pleased with the Tribunal’s decision and recognition of our client’s experience, both from the unwanted advances of a senior, male colleague who was responsible for her welfare, and of the British Council whose investigation was found to be seriously flawed.”
“This ruling should send a clear signal that allegations of sexual harassment need to be taken seriously and thoroughly, objectively and independently investigated, ensuring that the complainant is adequately supported. We hope that this case will serve as an example to others and that we will do all we can to support those who may feel that their own experience has been inadequately addressed or dismissed.”
The full Tribunal decision dated 5 July 2024 can be viewed at the Government website.
Tony Reilly loses his OBE
In March 2026, King Charles stripped Mr Reilly of his OBE due to professional censure. He had held the OBE since 2011 and was one of nine people to lose their title in the review.
Employment Appeal Tribunal Success
The compensation to be awarded has yet to be determined in full by the Employment Tribunal. However, as part of the liability decision, the Employment Tribunal determined that any award should be reduced by 35% to reflect their finding that KJ would have left employment at the point that she did in any event.
KJ, supported by Stephens Scown LLP, appealed that aspect of the decision and the British Council had also cross-appealed the decision of the Employment Tribunal which had found that the actions of Mr Reilly were presented in time. The Honorable Mr Justice Sheldon sitting in the Employment Appeal Tribunal heard the appeal on 10 February 2026. The findings of the Employment Appeal Tribunal were to uphold KJ’s appeal and dismiss the British Council’s appeal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal found that the Employment Tribunal’s decision to reduce compensation as they did was an error of law.
The judgment reminds Tribunals that when considering whether to make any reduction to compensation, they must adequately consider what the counterfactual position would have been had the unlawful acts of discrimination not occurred.
Joe Nicholls, speaking about the appeal outcome for our client says: “This EAT decision is important because it refuses to allow the British Council to escape liability for sexual harassment, and because it refuses to uphold an erroneous reduction to the level of compensation that should be paid. We continue to support KJ through the delays and challenges of litigation and continue to help her hold those responsible for the treatment she endured to account.”
The full Employment Appeal Tribunal decision can be viewed at the Government website K J v British Council: [2026] EAT 46 – GOV.UK.
The case continues with issues of remedy to be determined in a further Employment Appeal Tribunal hearing in 2027.