The recent case of Niamh Farrell, as reported by RTÉ, has highlighted crucial considerations for employers when handling serious allegations. While the finer details of the case remain private, it raises important questions about fair procedures, the role of investigations, and the potential risks of external pressures in disciplinary matters.
These types of cases can be nightmare cases for HR teams and employers, facing into complex cases with a lack of budget and resourcing, and/or an abundance of pressure from various parties.
And we get it – pressurised situations can lead to organisations feeling like they need to “solve” the case and “deal with the matter” as soon as possible. However, more often than not, this approach can skip over important elements, leave gaps, and leave all parties worse off than envisaged or planned!
For employers, ensuring that disciplinary processes are conducted fairly, impartially, and in accordance with employment law is essential. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of robust procedures when dealing with sensitive allegations in the workplace.
What is Catfishing?
For those of you who may not have fallen foul to this phenomenon, popularised by the MTV show of the same name, catfishing is a deceptive practice where an individual creates a fake identity online, often to mislead or manipulate others. While typically associated with social media and online dating, catfishing can also have implications in workplace and educational settings, particularly where trust and reputational concerns are involved.
In this particular case, the Two Johnnies podcast brought this story into the limelight resulting in a frenzy of attention, analysis and amateur investigating online by listeners and experts alike.
For the full background, check out the podcast episodes here.
For the HR and employment law perspective however, read on!
The Investigation Process
A fair and impartial investigation is the foundation of any disciplinary process. As Mary Cullen, Managing Director of Insight HR, explains:
“An investigation establishes the facts. The disciplinary process then gives the accused an opportunity to defend themselves, cross-examine witnesses and relevant evidence, which may include presenting mitigating circumstances such as mental health considerations.”
To ensure fairness and legal compliance, an investigation should:
- Be impartial, avoiding bias or external influence.
- Rely on clear, documented evidence.
- Adhere to the principles of natural justice.
One critical risk in high-profile cases is the pressure from external parties, including media, parents, or other stakeholders. As Mary notes, “Employers need to be incredibly careful when bowing to external pressure.” This is especially important when making decisions that could have lasting reputational and legal consequences.
We recently covered a case, that while is different from a gross misconduct perspective, very similarly raises questions around accusations and credibility. In the Sodexo case, which we covered on both our podcast and here on LinkedIn, the importance of a robust, impartial and fair investigation process was the key takeaway for employers.
While an accusation and complaint, is certainly enough of a trigger for an organisation to commence an investigation, the investigation itself must be conducted properly, with impartiality, with full consideration to all evidence, and with expert care and reporting.
And, importantly, given the media attention and reputational damage these cases bring in today’s world, ask yourself – should I take care of this myself, or should I bring in external experts to ensure this is done correctly, in the interests of all parties involved?
The Disciplinary Process
Following an investigation, the disciplinary process must be equally fair. Key considerations include:
- Giving the accused a chance to respond to allegations.
- Allowing cross-examination of witnesses and opportunity to challenge the evidence where an individual’s job is at stake.
- Ensuring that any decision to dismiss is justified and follows due process.
- Providing an opportunity for appeal, with a more senior or impartial decision-maker reviewing the case.
Failure to follow fair procedures can leave organisations vulnerable to legal challenges, including claims of unfair dismissal.
The Role of Fair Procedures & The High Court Injunction
An interesting aspect of the Farrell case was the High Court injunction, which prevented the school proceeding with the disciplinary process. As Rebecca Bowman, Head of Workplace Investigations at Insight HR, explains:
“The injunction was an interesting part of the case, as the High Court must have found that there was a lack of fair procedures.”
While we have seen injunctions appear in the headlines in the past, particularly in another high profile case involving a teacher and a school (the well-documented case of Enoch Burke), injunctions are still rare due to the high cost and other factors.
However, in cases where injunctions are granted, the High Court (and other courts) will grant injunctive relief, if evidence presented by the accused highlights an absence of full, robust, fair procedures in the investigation.
This highlights a critical risk for employers: if an organisation does not follow due process, the courts may intervene, leading to delays, reputational damage, and potential financial penalties.
Key Takeaways for Employers
This case underscores several important lessons for employers:
- Conduct robust investigations – Ensure all facts are gathered impartially and that evidence is collected fairly.
- Be wary of external influence – Do not let media pressure or external stakeholders dictate outcomes, and ensure your process follows the right process in the right way, without rushing to judgement.
- Ensure procedural fairness – Follow a structured disciplinary process, allowing employees a fair opportunity to respond.
- Consider external expertise – Given the complexity and sensitivity of such cases, engaging external HR or legal professionals can provide vital impartiality and compliance assurance.
- Be aware of legal risks – Failure to adhere to fair procedures can lead to legal challenges, including injunctions and unfair dismissal claims.
Final Thoughts
The “alleged” Catfish case serves as a reminder of the importance of strong HR procedures in handling complex workplace investigations and disciplinary matters. Employers must ensure that investigations are fair, impartial, and legally compliant to protect both the organisation and the individuals involved. Many HR practitioners and employers tell us they don’t have the budget for an external investigator. But when the stakes are high, is it worth the risk?
Too often, HR professionals find themselves in trouble when handling complex cases they aren’t trained for – underestimating both the demands of an investigation and the time it takes. Realistically, does a busy HR practitioner have the capacity to manage this within an already crammed working day? We often see people struggling to type up meeting minutes, draft reports, and handle the immense pressure from solicitors and trade unions questioning their professionalism and ability. And when things go pear-shaped or the case becomes public, the real question is: what’s the cost of getting it wrong?
Peace of mind, reputational protection, and a watertight process aren’t expenses they’re investments. That’s why organisations trust a specialist provider like us. If your organisation is facing a complex workplace investigation, our Barrister-led Workplace Investigations team at Insight HR can provide expert, impartial support to ensure compliance and fairness. Contact us today to discuss how we can help you navigate these challenges effectively.
