Case 2202054/2019 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Respondent — 2021

Case reference: 2202054/2019
Decision date: 21 June 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Brown Members
Panel members: Ms S Samek, Mr D Shaw

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant worked as a paralegal in Nakhoda from 3 December 2018 under a short fixed-term engagement routed through ABC Ltd and the Stephen James Partnership. The tribunal held that she had not been employed by Linklaters within s.83(2) EqA 2010 and was not a contract worker under s.41 EqA 2010 because there was no evidential basis to imply a contract of employment between her and ABC Ltd, and no factual basis showing the necessary contractual relationship for contract-worker status. On that basis, the Equality Act claims could not proceed against the respondents.

The tribunal nevertheless went on to determine the substantive allegations. It rejected the allegation said to have occurred on 31 January 2019 at Yauatcha after reviewing clear CCTV footage and the surrounding evidence. It found that Mr Mudgil did not touch the claimant’s bottom at the restaurant, and that the claimant had made a false allegation to the police and in the proceedings before withdrawing that incident. The tribunal also rejected the allegations that he touched her thigh on 10 December 2018, stood too close to her on 21 December 2018, or motioned to her to leave the bar with him on 1 February 2019.

On the 10 December 2018 breakfast, the tribunal preferred Mr Mudgil’s evidence and accepted that any invitation for drinks on 7 December was a general invitation to the team, not a targeted advance. It found the claimant’s accounts of the 10 December and 21 December incidents had changed in important respects over time and were not reliable. It also found that the WhatsApp messages relied on by the claimant did not provide a reliable account of events.

The tribunal accepted the respondents’ explanation for the early termination of the engagement and the decision not to extend it on improved terms. It found that those decisions were driven by performance concerns, disruption in the workplace, the January holiday issue, timesheet concerns, limited work, and business need, rather than any rejection of alleged conduct. All claims were dismissed and no remedy was awarded.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Harassment	Claim under s.26(2) EqA 2010. The tribunal first held that the claimant was not employed by Linklaters within s.83(2) EqA 2010 and was not a contract worker under s.41 EqA 2010, so she could not bring EqA claims. Alternatively, it found that Mr Mudgil did not touch her thigh on 10 December 2018, did not stand too close to her on 21 December 2018, and did not gesture for her to leave the bar with him on 1 February 2019.	Dismissed	—	—
Harassment	Claim under s.26(1) EqA 2010. The tribunal held there was no employment status under s.83(2) EqA 2010 and no contract worker status under s.41 EqA 2010. In the alternative, it rejected the factual allegations and found no unwanted conduct related to sex on 10 December 2018, 21 December 2018, or 1 February 2019.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Harassment	Claim under s.26(3) EqA 2010, pleaded on the basis that the claimant was treated less favourably because she rejected alleged sexual conduct. The tribunal held there was no qualifying employment status and, in any event, found that the alleged conduct did not occur and that the early termination and non-extension decisions were based on performance, disruption, the January holiday issue, timesheets, and business need rather than any rejection of conduct.	Dismissed	Sex	—

Legal tests applied

11 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.