Case 2203871/2020 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr F Austin (2) Ms M Newton v The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea — 2019
- Case reference
- 2203871/2020
- Decision date
- 29 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Joffe
- Panel members
- Ms C Brayson, Mr D Carter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Mr F Austin (2) Ms M Newton
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Austin was an agency worker in the Grenfell finance team, and Ms Newton was brought in in November 2019 for a housing legacy project. The tribunal found that the project had not been properly approved before Ms Newton was set up to start, and later accepted Ms Eves' evidence that the project was not required. It also found that the Grenfell finance team became increasingly dysfunctional in early 2020 as disputes developed about workload, management of the team, and the handling of contract extensions.
On Mr Austin's public interest disclosure claims, the tribunal rejected the alleged disclosures made to Ms Eves in January and February 2020 and at the 27 February 2020 meeting with Reg Davies. It held that he did not reasonably believe the material showed breach of legal obligation, fraud, or breach of fiduciary duty, and that he did not reasonably believe the disclosures were in the public interest. His victimisation claim also failed because the tribunal found no protected act on his part.
On Ms Newton's case, the tribunal accepted that some of the material she raised about the 29 November 2019 remarks could amount to information tending to show sexual harassment, but it held that her whistleblowing disclosures were not reasonably believed to be in the public interest. Her victimisation claim failed as well: the tribunal accepted that the 13 February 2020 complaint to Mr Austin and the written follow-up were protected acts because they alleged sexual harassment, but it found no detriment caused by those acts.
The harassment claims succeeded only in part. The tribunal upheld the complaints that Ms Shields said the claimants were probably sleeping together and that Ms Newton was 'sucking his cock about now', and it also upheld Ms Newton's complaint that Ms Shields called her a 'cunt' in late 2019. It dismissed the remaining harassment allegations, including the 'young lady' remark, the diary-related complaint, and the comments about Ms Newton's appointment. It held that the conduct was time-barred unless extended, but it was just and equitable to extend time. The respondent did not make out the section 109 reasonable steps defence.
This was a liability-only judgment. Remedy was not determined and was left for a later hearing if the parties could not agree it.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Mr Austin: alleged oral and written disclosures in January-February 2020 to Ms Eves and Mr Davies about alleged obstruction, harassment, fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. The tribunal found that he did not hold, or could not reasonably hold, the necessary belief that the material showed relevant wrongdoing, and it also rejected any reasonable belief that the disclosures were in the public interest. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | Mr Austin: the tribunal found no protected act in the January-February 2020 meetings or emails, including the complaints about Ms Shields and Mr Rahman. It therefore dismissed the victimisation claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | Mr Austin: upheld only in respect of the 29 November 2019 remarks that the claimants were probably sleeping together and that Ms Newton was 'sucking his cock about now'. The tribunal dismissed the remaining harassment allegations, including the 'young lady' remark and the appointment-related complaints. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Whistleblowing | Ms Newton: the tribunal accepted that some of the material she raised about the 29 November 2019 remarks amounted to information tending to show sexual harassment, but it held that the disclosures were not reasonably believed to be in the public interest. The whistleblowing claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | Ms Newton: the tribunal found that the 13 February 2020 complaint to Mr Austin and the written follow-up were protected acts because they alleged sexual harassment, but it found no detriment caused by those acts. The victimisation claim was dismissed. |
Legal tests applied
15 references- Blackbay Ventures v Gahir
- s.43B(1) ERA 1996
- Cavendish Munro / Kilraine
- Kraus v Penna
- Babula v Waltham Forest College
- Darnton v University of Surrey
- s.47B ERA 1996
- s.48 ERA 1996
- s.26(1) and s.26(2) Equality Act 2010
- Richmond Pharmacology Ltd v Dhaliwal
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- s.109 Equality Act 2010
- Canniffe v East Riding of Yorkshire Council
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.