Case 1803164/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Tahir v National Grid UK Limited Heard: 2- 4 May 2023 Deliberations 26 May 2023 — 2022
- Case reference
- 1803164/2021
- Decision date
- 14 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
- Panel members
- Ms H Brown, Mr K Smith
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E Tahir
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a remedy judgment after the earlier liability judgment of 14 September 2022 had already recorded that the claimant's complaints succeeded, including 26 acts of sexual harassment and 8 acts of victimisation. The remedy hearing took place on 2-4 May 2023, with deliberations on 26 May 2023, and focused on compensation, mitigation and grossing up. The tribunal awarded £2,850 damages for wrongful dismissal.
The claimant resigned on 8 July 2021 after harassment by her mentor and victimisation when she complained. A medical report diagnosed adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood caused by the respondent's contraventions. The tribunal accepted symptoms including sleep difficulties, appetite and concentration problems, low mood, anxiety, irritability, avoidance, intrusion and hyperarousal, and found they were expected to improve with counselling within about 10 months from the report.
On mitigation, the tribunal found the claimant had applied for more than 200 roles and that her labour market position was affected by the shape of her CV and the earlier proceedings. It did not accept the respondent's case that she would have succeeded in the other roles identified in evidence, but it found she acted unreasonably in refusing the RLB assistant project manager offer in March 2023. Future loss was therefore limited to five years from 5 April 2023, using the RLB starting salary and average annual increases of 5%; the tribunal rejected the case that the RLB role would have extinguished future loss.
The tribunal awarded £40,000 for injury to feelings, £10,000 for psychiatric injury, £5,000 aggravated damages, £56,681 past pecuniary loss, £73,719.47 future pecuniary loss, £4,500 share incentive plan loss and £1,215 medical expenses. It also awarded interest of £11,706.28 and £7,861.86 and applied a 15% ACAS uplift. The aggravated damages and uplift reflected, among other matters, the handling of the grievance process, the failure to deal with the matter informally as requested, and the way the perpetrator's account was not properly shared with the claimant before conclusions were reached. The tribunal rejected the Darley Street feasibility study as too remote.
The total Equality Act awards including interest were £225,673.78. After adding the wrongful dismissal damages and grossing up the taxable elements, while excluding the medical expenses from grossing up, the respondent was ordered to pay £357,004 in total. The tribunal found that, apart from the refusal of the RLB offer, the claimant had acted reasonably in trying to recover and return to work.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The introduction describes the complaint as wrongful constructive dismissal; paragraph 127 awards £2,850 damages in respect of wrongful dismissal. | Upheld | — | £2,850 |
| Harassment | The earlier liability judgment recorded 26 acts of sexual harassment. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | The earlier liability judgment recorded 8 acts of victimisation. | Upheld | Sex | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £357,004
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £166,106
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.119(2) Equality Act 2010
- s.124(6) Equality Act 2010
- mitigation of loss
- Cooper Contracting Ltd v Lindsey
- Gardiner-Hill v Roland Berger Technics Ltd
- Wardle v Credit Agricole Corporate Bank
- Yorkshire Housing Ltd v Cuerden
- ACAS Code uplift
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.
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.