Case 2601628/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss. Holly Merriman v Bugibba Independent Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2601628/2021
- Decision date
- 21 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heap Members
- Panel members
- Mr M Alibhai, Mrs D Newton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss. Holly Merriman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal (Employment Judge Heap sitting with Mr M Alibhai and Mrs D Newton) heard claims by Miss Holly Merriman against Bugibba Independent Limited (t/a Project Doughnut) of harassment related to sex, direct sex discrimination, victimisation and automatically unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure. The hearing took place over five days in May 2023 with judgment reserved and promulgated on 18 August 2023.
The tribunal upheld the Claimant's complaint of harassment contrary to s.26(1) Equality Act 2010 in respect of events in December 2020/January 2021 involving Mr Oliver Horn, and upheld her complaints of harassment contrary to s.26(3) Equality Act 2010 in respect of subsequent comments said to have been made because she had rejected Mr Horn's advances. The parallel direct sex discrimination complaints in respect of the same matters were dismissed because s.212(1) Equality Act 2010 precludes conduct being both harassment and direct discrimination. The victimisation complaints under s.27 Equality Act 2010 were found to be well-founded and succeeded to the extent set out in the reasons, save for the complaints relating to suspension and changes in shifts after 28 March 2021, which failed and were dismissed. A further complaint that the Claimant had been ostracised was withdrawn in closing submissions and dismissed on withdrawal.
The complaint of automatically unfair dismissal under s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996 failed: the tribunal concluded that the disclosure made on 28 March 2021 was not made in the public interest and so was not a protected disclosure. The judgment directed that a preliminary hearing be listed by telephone to make orders for a separate remedy hearing; no remedy figures were determined in the liability judgment.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Harassment contrary to s.26(1) Equality Act 2010 succeeded in respect of events of December 2020/January 2021 (Mr Horn's conduct of a sexual nature). | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Harassment contrary to s.26(3) Equality Act 2010 (conduct related to claimant's rejection of advances) succeeded. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination complaints in respect of the same matters were dismissed by virtue of s.212(1) Equality Act 2010 (cannot be both harassment and direct discrimination). | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation complaints under s.27 Equality Act 2010 well-founded and succeed to the extent set out in the judgment. Complaints relating to suspension and to changes in shifts after 28th March 2021 failed and were dismissed. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Harassment / alternatively direct discrimination complaint relating to the assertion that the Claimant was ostracised was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Whistleblowing |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Section 26(1) Equality Act 2010
- Section 26(3) Equality Act 2010
- Section 13 Equality Act 2010
- Section 27 Equality Act 2010
- Section 212(1) Equality Act 2010
- Section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 43B Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 230 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.