Ms L A Crabtree v Marc Bandemer and 3 others — 2022

The tribunal held that the claimant's real employer was Marc Bandemer, not any of the company respondents. It found the written company documents did not reflect the reality because the companies were dormant and could not, on the evidence, have employed her. The claims against Integer Wealth Global Ltd, Critical Mass Technologies Ltd and Integer Wealth Capital Ltd were therefore dismissed.

On harassment, the tribunal treated the sex discrimination and harassment allegations as a continuing course of conduct for limitation purposes. It found that the relationship between the claimant and Mr Bandemer fluctuated over time and that not every comment or gift was unwanted. Some early banter, some invitations, and many gifts were accepted or welcomed, but it found that a series of later acts, particularly from September 2021 and then in January to April 2022, crossed the line into unwanted sex-related and sexual conduct. Those findings included repeated use of terms such as girl, wife, honey and naughty, romantic messages, inappropriate touching, the solitaire ring and vase, and physical conduct at the claimant's home and in front of her daughter and housekeeper. The tribunal rejected some allegations, including parts of the client-meeting and photo allegations, but upheld harassment for the acts set out in its conclusions.

For direct sex discrimination, the tribunal accepted that the 31 May 2022 offer of a lower-status Luxembourg sales role was less favourable treatment because the claimant had rejected Mr Bandemer's advances. It relied on the fact that the treatment was linked to his wish for a romantic relationship with her, which he would not have had with a man. The later express dismissal letter of 23 June 2022 was not found to be sex-based because the UK operation was ceasing and a male employee who refused the Luxembourg move would have been treated in the same way. The separate allegation that the grievance of 16 June 2022 was not investigated was also rejected as discriminatory.

The claimant also succeeded on wrongful dismissal because the tribunal found that she was entitled to three months' notice and was summarily dismissed at the start of that notice period without gross misconduct. Holiday pay succeeded because accrued leave remained unpaid at termination, and the unauthorised deductions claim succeeded only so far as employee pension deductions were taken but not paid into a pension fund. The tribunal rejected any recovery for PAYE and national insurance deductions. The separate contractual bonus claim was not pursued and was dismissed upon withdrawal. No remedy was determined in this judgment, because compensation was left to a later hearing.