Case 2301211/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Scottscape Group Ltd (in Liquidation) — 2025
- Case reference
- 2301211/2024
- Decision date
- 7 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer Tribunal
- Panel members
- D Rogers, Dengate
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant alleged sexual harassment by her line manager, including comments and images in June 2023 and later alleged instructions, physical contact, sexual messages and threats connected with a dominant-submissive dynamic. The respondent was in liquidation and did not participate in the hearing beyond a representative attending briefly on the first morning.
The tribunal accepted some June 2023 factual matters, including discussion of the claimant's thigh tattoo, dominant-submissive relationships, and photographs, but did not accept later allegations about instructions, personal space, physical contact, sexual letters or dismissal threats. It found the WhatsApp messages showed mutually flirtatious and consensual exchanges, and that the claimant wanted and encouraged the attention until the line manager raised the messages with the respondent.
The tribunal concluded that the conduct alleged was sexual in nature, but that the conduct complained of was wanted and therefore did not meet the definition of harassment under s.26 Equality Act 2010. The claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The judgment describes the complaint as sexual harassment and dismisses it because the tribunal found the conduct was wanted, not unwanted conduct within s.26 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- Driskel v Peninsula Business Service Ltd and ors [2000] IRLR 151, EAT
- Equality and Human Rights Commission Code and Guidance
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.