Claimant v The Department For Environment Food And Rural Affairs and B — 2020

This was a preliminary hearing on 5 December 2019 to decide whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the claim against the second respondent and to determine the claimant's Rule 50 application. No oral evidence was heard. The tribunal proceeded on the papers and, for this hearing only, accepted the claimant's account of the relevant facts as capable of proof. It said its findings on jurisdiction would not bind a later tribunal hearing the substantive claim.

Applying section 109 EqA 2010, the tribunal held that the alleged conduct was done in the course of employment. It accepted that the work was Brexit-related, time-pressured, and often required after-hours work; that the meetings at the claimant's hotel room were arranged ostensibly for work purposes; and that the hotel room could be treated as an extension of work premises. Relying on Jones v Tower Boat Co Ltd and Chief Constable of Lincolnshire v Stubbs, and distinguishing Waters, Sidhu, and HM Prison Service v Davis, it refused the first respondent's strike-out application and held that it had jurisdiction to hear the claim against the second respondent.

On the harassment issue, the tribunal said that section 26(3) EqA requires a claimant first to establish unwanted conduct under section 26(3)(a) and (b) before relying on less favourable treatment under section 26(3)(c) after rejection of that conduct. It also granted the claimant's Rule 50 application and made a restricted reporting order and anonymisation order for the first claim only, on the basis that the case involved allegations of sexual misconduct and privacy considerations. The tribunal indicated that those reporting restrictions could be revisited when the linked claims were listed further.