Case 1600111/2022 · Employment Tribunal
AB v Grafters Group Limited (t/a CSI Catering Services International) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600111/2022
- Decision date
- 8 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Bromige
- Venue
- Cardiff ET
- Panel members
- Mr. Horne, Mr. Roberts
Parties
2 namedClaimant
AB
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAB alleged that CD sexually assaulted her in his car on 1 November 2021 while she believed she was travelling to work at Hereford Race Course. The tribunal accepted AB's account of the material events and found that CD subjected her to unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, including touching her abdomen, asking her to kiss him, showing her a pornographic video, and making sexual comments. It also relied on earlier WhatsApp messages between AB and CD, which it found were sexualised and supported the inference that the conduct in the car was sexual in nature.
Applying s.26 EqA 2010 and the guidance in Richmond Pharmacology Ltd v Dhaliwal, the tribunal found that the conduct had the required effect. It accepted that AB experienced the journey as hostile and intimidating, that she immediately contacted the police after escaping from CD, and that it was reasonable for the conduct to have that effect on her. The tribunal therefore found sexual harassment as between AB and CD.
The claim nevertheless failed against Grafters Group Limited because the tribunal held that CD was not acting in the course of his employment for the purposes of s.109(1) EqA 2010. It found that the respondent had cancelled AB's Hereford shift and had arranged transport separately through Shaun Richards, while AB's belief that she was still booked to work was not determinative. On that basis, the tribunal dismissed the sexual harassment claim against the respondent and recorded no remedy.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The tribunal found that CD subjected AB to unwanted conduct of a sexual nature on 1 November 2021, but held that the respondent was not liable because the conduct was not done in the course of CD's employment within s.109(1) EqA 2010. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- section 26 EqA 2010
- section 26(4) EqA 2010
- section 109(1) EqA 2010
- Richmond Pharmacology Ltd v Dhaliwal
- Jones v Tower Boot Co Limited
- Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police v Stubbs
- Anyanwu v South Bank University
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.