Case 2201693/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs A Prior v 1 Greycoat Real Estate LLP 2 Mr N Millican — 2023

Case reference: 2201693/2022
Decision date: 24 May 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge H Grewal
Venue: London Central
Panel members: Ms H Craik, Mr M Reuby

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs A Prior

Respondent

1 Greycoat Real Estate LLP 2 Mr N Millican

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal first dealt with limitation and held that it had no jurisdiction to consider complaints of direct sex discrimination, sexual harassment and pregnancy/maternity discrimination based on acts before 29 November 2021. It also considered the earlier allegations in case that conclusion was wrong, but found those complaints would fail on the evidence in any event. The tribunal applied the Equality Act time-limit provisions, including the just and equitable discretion, and the burden-shifting approach under section 136.

On the earlier allegations concerning Mr Millican's relationship with CH and the call to the fertility clinic, the tribunal found Mrs Prior had voluntarily involved herself and would have been able to object if she had wanted to do so. It found she supported Mr Millican and CH of her own accord, and that the clinic call was something she agreed to do. The tribunal also found that the 11 November 2019 pub incident involved Mr Millican putting his hand on her knee and making a remark about whether something could have happened between them, but not an attempted kiss.

The tribunal rejected the sex and pregnancy/maternity discrimination complaints arising from the August 2021 discussions about returning to work. It found the proposal to move Mrs Prior into Residential was made to accommodate part-time working after maternity leave, that the alternative was a return to her existing role full-time, and that moving between silos meant profit-sharing followed the silo in which a partner worked. It also found the draft and final LLP documentation reflected the then-existing paused partnership position, including nil LLP time percentage, nil priority profit shares and nil monthly drawings, rather than maternity-based treatment.

The tribunal further rejected the complaint that Mrs Prior had not been paid her October to December 2021 drawings. It found that the non-payment flowed from the agreement that she would not be doing any work and would not be paid while her partnership was paused, not from her earlier maternity leave. It also rejected the September 2020 sabbatical comment and the January 2021 "trust all is well in the garden" remark as unfavourable treatment or maternity-based treatment.

The victimisation claim failed because the tribunal found the 21 February 2022 suspension of email and system access was driven by concerns about confidential information after Mr Prior's 9 February 2022 meeting with Mr Millican and later correspondence, not because the respondents believed Mrs Prior might bring discrimination proceedings. No award was made.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Sex discrimination	The tribunal held that complaints based on acts before 29 November 2021 were out of time, and in any event rejected the allegations on their merits. It found Mrs Prior had voluntarily engaged in the CH-related discussions and the clinic call, and that the August 2021 return-to-work options and the 30 November 2021 LLP agreement were not sex discrimination.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Pregnancy and maternity discrimination	The tribunal held that pre-29 November 2021 complaints were outside its jurisdiction and, alternatively, that the September 2020 and January 2021 comments, the August/November 2021 return-to-work arrangements, the passive-member designation, and the non-payment of drawings were not because of pregnancy or maternity leave. It found the claimant was not on maternity leave in November 2021 and that the later treatment reflected the agreed paused partnership and restructuring.	Dismissed	Pregnancy and maternity	—
Harassment	The tribunal found the 11 November 2019 pub incident involved Mr Millican putting his hand on the claimant's knee and making a remark, but not an attempted kiss. It said the complaint was out of time and, if it had jurisdiction, the conduct would not have satisfied the statutory harassment effect test.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Victimisation	The tribunal accepted that the claimant's husband had made allegations of discrimination and that this was a protected act, but found the 21 February 2022 suspension of email and system access was because of confidentiality concerns arising from his knowledge of a transaction and the respondents' concerns about access to information, not because they thought the claimant might bring proceedings.

Legal tests applied

15 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.