Mrs G Roberts First v Kapia Partners Limited Second Respondent: Mr G Hankic — 2024

The tribunal found that Mrs G Roberts was an employee of Kapia Partners Ltd for unfair and wrongful dismissal purposes, or in any event by the time of her dismissal on 22 December 2022. It relied on the PAYE wage payments, the regular dividend payments, the parties' conduct, and the shareholders' agreement dated 16 May 2022. It refused the first respondent's late attempt to withdraw the concession that, if employee status were established, the unfair and wrongful dismissal claims would succeed.

The sexual orientation complaints were withdrawn. On the Equality Act claims, the tribunal found that the complaint was brought in time, or alternatively that it was just and equitable to extend time for the incident on 3 September 2022. It also found that the events from 17 October 2022 onwards formed part of a continuing course of conduct. In the alternative, it held that the claimant was a personal office holder under the direction of Mr G Hankic from late September 2022, but that point did not alter the outcome because the employment route applied.

For the incident at Mr Hankic's house after a work event on 2 and 3 September 2022, the tribunal preferred the claimant's account. It found that, after flirtatious messages the previous week, Mr Hankic made unwanted sexual advances while they were in bed, that the claimant did not welcome them, and that her account was supported by contemporaneous WhatsApp messages and evidence from Miss Pinks and Miss Sawbridge. That finding supported harassment related to sex and harassment by unwanted conduct of a sexual nature.

The tribunal then found that Mr Hankic's treatment of the claimant changed after that night. It accepted that he ignored her on her return from leave, criticised her performance, took steps to move parts of her role to other employees, asked for details of her recent work activity, and progressed the process that led to her removal as a director and employee on 22 December 2022. The section 26(3) harassment claims succeeded for allegations 4 to 12 and 15 to 18, while allegations 2, 3, 13, 14 and 19 were dismissed. The salary and dividend complaints failed because the tribunal accepted the bank-app explanation for the wage description, accepted that dividends paid to Mr Hankic were repayment of loans, and found that no dividends were paid to anyone after 30 December 2022.

The direct sex discrimination complaints failed, either because the same conduct was harassment and therefore fell within section 212(1), or because the tribunal found no sex-based explanation for the salary and dividend matters. The victimisation complaints also failed. The tribunal accepted that the grievances of 15 November 2022 and 9 December 2022 were protected acts, but found that the later treatment was not because of those acts. Liability was found on the upheld claims, but remedy was not assessed in this judgment and was left to a later hearing.