Case 2201898/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Represented herself For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 2201898/2022
- Decision date
- 27 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lewis
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Mr G Bishop, Mr J Carroll
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Represented herself For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a paramedic science student on placement with London Ambulance Service NHS Trust, alleged that her mentor, Joshua Buist-Bainbridge, committed a series of sexually harassing acts during October and November 2021, including comments, touching, and sexual remarks. The tribunal heard from the claimant, Mr Buist-Bainbridge and another witness, and considered the placement paperwork, WhatsApp messages, and the later investigation carried out by the University and the Trust. It also noted the claimant's ADHD diagnosis and the difficulties she described with concentration, memory and written expression.
The tribunal found some of the alleged exchanges occurred, but held they were not proven to be conduct of a sexual nature, or were too vague or unsupported to be found on the balance of probabilities. It found that the "hopefully we can maybe be friends" comment, the "don't you care about me / you just want your PAD signed" exchange, the warning about flirting with a patient, and the comment that her reasons for not being in a relationship were selfish were not sexual in nature. It did not accept the allegations that Mr Buist-Bainbridge called her "hun" or "sweetheart", touched her lower back, came up behind her while she was cannulating a patient, stood too close in a sexual way, made the slave comments, made the vulgar sexual comments, or said he needed to be careful not to write anything sexual in her PAD document.
On the evidence about the end of the placement, the tribunal found that Mr Buist-Bainbridge's negative summary arose from irritation about having to redo the stolen PAD entries and from the inconsistency between his earlier email feedback and the signed summary form submitted by the claimant, rather than because she had rejected or submitted to any sexual conduct. It accepted that he was dismissive and annoyed about the paperwork, but did not find that he linked the final assessment to any alleged advances or that he said he would fail her unless she slept with him. Both claims were therefore dismissed. There was no remedy awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Claim of sexual harassment under section 26(2) Equality Act 2010. The tribunal held the alleged conduct was either not proved or was not conduct of a sexual nature, and did not uphold the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | Claim of rejection/submission harassment under section 26(3) Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found no proved link between any alleged rejection or submission and the decision not to sign the claimant off as successful at the placement. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s26(2) EqA 2010
- s26(3) EqA 2010
- s55(3) EqA 2010
- s212 EqA 2010
- Richmond Pharmacology Ltd v Dhaliwal
- Grant v HM Land Registry
- Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board v Hughes and others
- Weeks v Newham College of Further Education
- Driskel v Peninsula Business Services Ltd and ors
- EHRC Employment Code para 7.18
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.