Case 2500869/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Christine Hotham Second Claimant: Miss S Penman v Acre Rigg Social Club Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2500869/2022
- Decision date
- 14 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Loy Members
- Venue
- Newcastle CFCTC in person
- Panel members
- S Moules, S Wykes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Christine Hotham Second Claimant: Miss S Penman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a reserved liability judgment in joined claims by Mrs Christine Hotham (first claimant) and Miss S Penman (second claimant) against Acre Rigg Social Club Limited. The tribunal, sitting at Newcastle CFCTC before Employment Judge Loy with members S Moules and S Wykes, heard evidence over October and November 2023 and reserved judgment until 14 June 2024. The first claimant's claims of ordinary unfair dismissal and discriminatory constructive dismissal succeeded, as did her disability related harassment claim in respect of allegations 9 (a false accusation by Mr Rought that she had put things on social media about her multiple sclerosis) and 15 (failure to address treatment of her by Mr Rought's family members). Her claims of direct disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments and victimisation did not succeed.
The second claimant's claim of sexual harassment under s.26(2)/(3) EqA 2010 succeeded in respect of allegations 3, 4, 5 and 6, which concerned comments by Mr Rought about her breasts and an incident in which he grabbed her arm and groped her bottom on 30/31 December 2021. Allegation 7, that the lack of acknowledgement of her grievance was itself sexual harassment, failed because the grievance did not refer to her protected characteristic of sex. Her claim of discriminatory constructive dismissal also succeeded; the tribunal, applying the guidance in Kaur, concluded that the conduct cumulatively amounted to a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence and that she resigned at least partly in response to that conduct.
Certain allegations (the first claimant's allegation 10 and the second claimant's allegations 1 and 2) were withdrawn. The matter was listed for a separate remedy hearing, so no monetary awards are set out in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | First claimant's ordinary unfair dismissal claim well founded and succeeded. Remedy to be determined at a separate remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | First claimant's discriminatory constructive dismissal claim well founded and succeeded. Remedy reserved to a later hearing. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Second claimant's discriminatory constructive dismissal claim well founded and succeeded. Tribunal concluded the resignation was a direct response to acts of sexual harassment. Remedy reserved to a later hearing. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | First claimant's direct disability discrimination claim under s.13 EqA 2010 was not well founded and failed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | First claimant's disability related harassment claim succeeded in respect of allegations 9 and 15, and failed in respect of all other allegations. Mixed outcome recorded as upheld because the claim succeeded in part. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | First claimant's claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments under ss.20, 21 EqA 2010 was not well founded and failed. | Dismissed |
Legal tests applied
8 references- sections 94 – 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- section 26(2) and (3) Equality Act 2010
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- sections 20, 21 Equality Act 2010
- section 39(2)(c) Equality Act 2010
- Kaur
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.