Claimant v Respondent — 2021

The claimant brought claims of unfair dismissal, sex discrimination, harassment, breach of contract and unlawful deductions from wages against the remaining respondent. The tribunal sat in Bristol on 11, 12 and 13 October 2021 before Employment Judge Livesey, with Mrs D England and Ms L Simpson as lay members. It treated findings from the earlier family proceedings as background evidence and held that the respondent could not challenge the relevant family court findings by issue estoppel.

On the facts, the tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence on the core workplace allegations and preferred it to the respondent's evidence, noting corroboration from former colleagues and that the respondent was evasive on important points. It found that the respondent had been controlling and coercive towards the claimant and that several incidents at work between 2012 and 2018 amounted to harassment related to sex. Four harassment allegations in paragraph 41.1 were upheld. The allegation linked to the dismissal message was rejected as harassment, a later allegation that he told customers she had left because of an affair was not proved, and a separate domestic sexual-assault allegation was dismissed because it was not in relation to employment, although it could still be relied on as background.

The tribunal found the dismissal on 20 March 2018 was unfair because no procedure or process of any kind had been followed. It accepted that the respondent may have had a fair reason in the abstract, namely the ending of a closely connected personal and professional relationship, but held that no fair dismissal process was carried out. It also found direct sex discrimination in the dismissal: the tribunal drew an inference from the sex-related harassment findings and the treatment of female staff, and it held that the respondent's explanation based on bail conditions did not rebut that inference. The breach of contract claim for notice was conceded, and the unlawful deduction from wages claim failed because the claimant had been paid up to the dismissal date.

On remedy, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £2,024 and a compensatory award of £350 for unfair dismissal, and £2,024 for breach of contract. It rejected a Polkey reduction, saying there was no evidence that a fair procedure would probably have led to dismissal in any event, and it also rejected past loss, future loss and pension loss claims. The claimant had become ill after dismissal, but there was no medical evidence connecting that to the dismissal, and by September 2021 she had returned to work as a self-employed beautician. For the harassment and sex discrimination findings, the tribunal awarded £18,000 for injury to feelings and £5,212.62 interest, applying the then-current Vento guidance bands. The total award was £27,610.62, and the recoupment provisions did not apply.