Case 2407426/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Harper v Ribeye Steakhouse (Manchester) Ltd HELD AT: Manchester — 2024
- Case reference
- 2407426/2023
- Decision date
- 20 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Childe REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Harper
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a costs judgment following the claimant's withdrawal of her claim before a preliminary hearing listed for 10 June 2024. The respondent applied for costs on the basis that the claimant had acted unreasonably or vexatiously in bringing the proceedings and in withdrawing them at a late stage.
The tribunal held that the claimant had not acted vexatiously or unreasonably in bringing the proceedings. The judgment recorded that the claimant alleged sexual harassment by a chef and had resigned afterwards, and that those allegations were capable of supporting sexual harassment and discriminatory constructive dismissal claims if established.
The tribunal also held that the claimant's failure to provide further particulars or a schedule of loss, and the timing of her withdrawal, did not amount to vexatious or unreasonable conduct. It found that the power to award costs had not arisen, and dismissed the respondent's costs application.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The costs judgment records that the claimant withdrew her claim before the 10 June 2024 preliminary hearing. The merits of the sexual harassment allegation were not adjudicated. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment describes a potential discriminatory constructive dismissal claim under the Equality Act 2010, but records that the claimant withdrew her claim before the merits were determined. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the claimant had ticked unfair dismissal, but the claim was withdrawn and the judgment did not determine the merits. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- rule 76(1) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 84 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Haydar v Pennine Acute NHS Trust UKEAT 0141/17/BA three-stage procedure
- Gee v Shell UK Limited [2003] IRLR 82
- McPherson v BNP Paribas (London Branch) [2004] ICR 1398
- Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Yerrakalva [2012] IRLR 78
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.