Case 2201655/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Smith, counsel For the v Ms D Romney, one of Her Majesty’s counsel — 2019
- Case reference
- 2201655/2018
- Decision date
- 18 March 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell. An
- Panel members
- Ms J Cameron, Ms S Plummer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Smith, counsel For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a solicitor, brought claims for wrongful dismissal, direct sex discrimination, sexual harassment, post-termination victimisation and holiday pay against the respondents. The tribunal found that she and R3 developed a close personal relationship quickly after she joined in February 2017, with extensive late-night messaging, social outings, outfit-sharing, photographs and video recordings. It treated those contemporaneous messages and recordings as central to the factual findings and held that the relationship involved blurred professional and personal boundaries.
On the sexual harassment allegations, the tribunal rejected the majority of the pleaded incidents as not proved. It found that several alleged comments and touching incidents in London, Amsterdam, Athens and Dubai were either not established on the balance of probabilities or occurred in circumstances where the claimant had participated willingly in the social and personal contact. The tribunal also found that the alleged pressure to take cannabis, the alleged assaults, and the alleged sexualised comments were not made out, and that the claimant's contemporaneous messages and conduct were inconsistent with the case she advanced at hearing.
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed on 21 December 2017 because R3 had lost trust in her after she admitted overstating time recorded on 12 December 2017 and after the tribunal found she had lied about reading the Particulars of Claim. It held that the dismissal was for dishonesty and gross misconduct, not because of sex, and that the comment that she was "calculating and conniving" was made in relation to the time-recording dishonesty. The direct sex discrimination claim therefore failed.
The victimisation claim also failed. The tribunal rejected most of the alleged detriments as either not false or not causally linked to a protected act, and found that the threats of injunctions were prompted by perceived harassment and suspicious conduct after dismissal. It held that the 7 June 2018 correspondence was bullying and intimidating in tone, but that the ET1 was not a protected act because the tribunal found the claim had been brought in bad faith. The holiday pay claim was dismissed on withdrawal, and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant's admitted dishonesty about time recording and the Particulars of Claim issue amounted to gross misconduct, so summary dismissal without notice was lawful. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal confined this claim to the comments made at dismissal on 21 December 2017 and the dismissal itself. It found the dismissal was because of dishonesty, not sex, and that a man in materially identical circumstances would have been treated the same. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal rejected most of the alleged sexual harassment incidents as not proved, and in several instances found the claimant had willingly engaged in or initiated the social contact, messaging, photographs and outings relied upon. It found the alleged sexual comments, touching, pressure and assaults were not established on the balance of probabilities, or occurred in a close relationship context and were not unwanted as alleged. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | Most alleged detriments were rejected on the facts or found not to be causally linked to a protected act. The tribunal found the 7 June 2018 correspondence was bullying and intimidating, but held the ET1 was not a protected act because the claim had been brought in bad faith. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay claim was dropped in submissions and dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn |
Legal tests applied
19 references- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.23 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal
- Grant v HM Land Registry
- Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan
- Derbyshire and others v St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council
- Igen v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the RUC
- Bahl v Law Society
- Bracebridge Engineering v Derby
- Reed v Stedman
- Insitu Cleaning v Heads
- Reed v Bull Information Systems Ltd
- Driskel v Peninsula Business Services Ltd
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.