Case 2206629/2022 · Employment Tribunal
both in person For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 2206629/2022
- Decision date
- 4 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Hodgson MR
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Mr S Hearn, Mr D Scholfield
Parties
1 namedClaimant
both in person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBoth claimants, Mr Haydari and Mr Naraghi, complained about comments made at a dinner in London on 9 June 2022 attended by Narvar employees and Mr Richard Terry-Lloyd, the chief revenue officer of Narvar, Inc. The tribunal accepted that Mr Terry-Lloyd said, in the claimants' presence, 'Fuck Iranians. Fuck Iraqis.' and later referred to Mr Naraghi as 'Iranian Tom'. It also recorded that the claimants were of Iranian background and that the remarks were unwelcome.
The central issue was whether Narvar UK Ltd was responsible for Mr Terry-Lloyd's conduct. The tribunal found he was employed by Narvar, Inc., not the respondent, and that there was no evidence of a contract with, or authority from, Narvar UK Ltd sufficient to make him its agent. It rejected third-party liability on the facts found, concluding that the respondent could not reasonably have anticipated the conduct or failed to act in a discriminatory way. The respondent's application to anonymise Mr Terry-Lloyd was refused.
If liability had attached, the tribunal said the comments were unwanted, racially specific and capable of amounting to harassment and, alternatively, direct race discrimination. It found the burden of proof would have shifted and that no explanation was advanced to rebut the case. The tribunal also said the section 109(4) reasonable steps defence was not made out on the evidence about training. The whistleblowing detriment complaints under section 47B ERA 1996 were treated as withdrawn and, alternatively, the tribunal said they would fail on the evidence or be struck out. No monetary remedy was awarded because the substantive claims were dismissed or withdrawn.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal treated the s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996 detriment complaints as withdrawn because neither claimant actively pursued them after the case management discussion; it said that, if wrong, the claims would be struck out or fail on the evidence. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Harassment | Race-related harassment alleged from the 9 June 2022 dinner comments, including 'Fuck Iranians. Fuck Iraqis.' and repeated use of 'Iranian Tom'. The tribunal held the conduct would have amounted to harassment, but dismissed the claim because Mr Terry-Lloyd was not the respondent's employee or agent and no third-party liability was established. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination was pleaded on the same 9 June 2022 comments. The tribunal held the words were racially specific and would have amounted to direct discrimination if liability attached, but dismissed the claim on the same non-liability basis. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.83 Equality Act 2010
- s.109 Equality Act 2010
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Anya v University of Oxford
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal
- Nazir and Aslam v Asim and Nottinghamshire Black Partnership
- Kemeh v Ministry of Defence
- MacDonald v Advocate General for Scotland; Pearce v Governing Body of Mayfield Secondary School
- Piepenbrock v London School of Economics
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.