Ms A v B and others: 2201655/2018
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 March 2019 |
| Citation | 2201655/2018 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 04 September 2019 |
| Subject Matter | Breach of Contract |
Case Number: 2201655/2018
1
THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
SITTING AT: LONDON CENTRAL
BEFORE: EMPLOYMENT JUDGE ELLIOTT
MEMBERS: MS J CAMERON
MS S PLUMMER
BETWEEN:
Ms A
Claimant
AND
B, C and D
Respondents
ON: 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27 and 28 February and 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and
11 March 2019
(Days 12-15 of this hearing were In Chambers)
Appearances:
For the Claimant: Mr P Smith, counsel
For the Respondents: Ms D Romney, one of Her Majesty’s counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT
1. The unanimous Judgment of the Tribunal is that the claims fail and are
dismissed.
2. The holiday pay claim is dismissed on withdrawal.
REASONS
1. By a claim form presented on 9 March 2018 the claimant Ms A claims
wrongful dismissal, direct sex discrimination, sexual harassment, post-
termination victimisation and holiday pay.
Case Number: 2201655/2018
2
2. The claimant is a solicitor and worked for the first and second respondent
from 20 February 2017 to 21 December 2017. She joined as a newly
qualified solicitor. R3 is the sole equity partner and managing partner of
the first respondent as well as the principal of the second respondent.
3. A case management hearing took place on 14 June 2018 before
Employment Judge Russell. An Anonymity Order was made at that
hearing under Rule 50. Judge Russell said that the Order would only be
sustained after judgment if the claimant was unsuccessful in her claim
against R3.
4. The respondents appealed to the EAT against the decision of Judge
Russell not to list the matter for a preliminary hearing for strikeout and/or
deposit. Lewis J considered the appeal and found that it disclosed no
reasonable grounds of appeal (letter 2 January 2019).
5. On 1 February 2019 Regional Employment Judge Potter made an Unless
Order for the exchange of witness statements. The case has been heavily
contested from a procedural point of view as well as substantively.
6. There was a case management hearing a week before the
commencement of this full merits hearing, namely on 11 February 2019
before Employment Judge Segal QC.
Witnesses and documents
7. A set of documents ran to 8 lever arch files.
8. We had a separate index to the bundles and an agreed Chronology and
agreed List of Issues.
9. At the beginning of day 6 of the hearing, we were shown video recordings
and we heard audio recordings made by the claimant and R3 in
Amsterdam in May 2017 and Dubai in November 2017. The authenticity
of those recordings was not in dispute.
10. There was an application on day 8 from the claimant to introduce new
documents. The application was opposed by the respondents. The
documentation had been in the claimant’s possession since well before
the date for disclosure in November 2018, on some documents since June
2018 and a message she was party to in October 2017. It included
photographs of which we had an enormous quantity in the 8 lever arch
files. The respondents opposed the application as it would involve
revisiting evidential matters and recalling the claimant as she had not been
cross-examined on the new documents. The claimant is a solicitor
represented by solicitors and counsel. We agreed with the respondents’
submissions and in addition considered that if this documentary evidence
was important, it should have been introduced so that the claimant could
deal with it in evidence. We refused the application.
11. For the claimant there were three witnesses, (i) the claimant, (ii) her fiancé
Mr TG and (iii) her best friend Ms ZS. Neither TG nor ZS had ever met
R3 prior to this hearing.
12. For the respondents there were 4 witnesses:
Case Number: 2201655/2018
3
a. R3
b. JB, a paralegal who no longer works for the respondents.
c. AK, a salaried partner in the firm.
d. IA, a self-employed consultant with the first and second
respondents.
13. We had detailed written submissions to which the parties spoke. They are
not replicated here. All submissions and authorities referred to were fully
considered, even if not expressly referred to below. We had a small
bundle of authorities from each side.
The issues
14. Judge Segal ordered that the parties were to ensure that a brief agreed
List of Issues was provided for the tribunal’s use on the first morning of the
full merits hearing. As the list of issues was so brief, we asked the parties
overnight between days 1 and 2 to set out a list of all the factual issues
the tribunal was required to decide. The List of Issues was as follows:
15. Did the R3 engage in the following conduct:
a. On 30 March 2017, did he place paper on the claimant's knee/lap
in order to instruct her in roulette, at the Playboy club? (ET1 para
17)
b. On 7 April 2017, did he lean over the claimant's thighs and
recline her chair, in the cinema room at his home? (ET1 para 23)
c. On 7 April 2017, did he invite the claimant to swim in his pool,
remarking "I don't mind if you swim in the nude"? (ET1 para 23)
d. On 7 April 2017, did he sniff the claimant’s hair and breathe down
her neck? (ET1 para 24)
e. After 7 April 2017, did he repeatedly invite the claimant to take
swimming lessons at his home? (ET1 para 31)
f. After 7 April 2017, did he repeatedly invite the claimant to his
home for movie nights? (ET1 para 31)
g. On 16 April 2017, upon giving the claimant a bottle of Good Girl
perfume, did he remark "Yes but sometimes it feels good to be a
bad girl"? (ET1 para 30)
h. On 27 April 2017, at a meal at Park Chinois did he repeatedly
put his hand on the claimant's knee? (ET1 para 32)
i. On the Amsterdam trip (12 May 2017) did he instruct the claimant
to come to his hotel room, remarking that he would "come and
drag [her] by the hair", and pressure her to sleep in his room?
(ET1 para 34.2)
j. On the Amsterdam trip (12 May 2017) did he pressure the
claimant to carry his cannabis for him? (ET1 para 34.2)
k. On the Amsterdam trip (12 May 2017) did he pressure the
claimant into attending a sex show and engineered matters so
she would have to sit next to him? (ET1 para 34.4)
l. On the Amsterdam trip (12 May 2017) did he pressure the
claimant to take cannabis, resulting in her illness?
To continue reading
Request your trial