Ms Madeline Luckham v HSBC Bank plc and 1 other — 2020

The tribunal found that the claimant had been engaged by HSBC as a contractor and later moved into the second respondent's Staff Digitisation team. It accepted that the claimant and the second respondent had a personal and sexual relationship, but found that the relationship had ended by January 2018, not in April 2018 as the claimant alleged. The tribunal found that later workplace difficulties were not caused by the claimant's sex or by the ending of that relationship.

The tribunal found that concerns about the claimant's working relationships and behaviour had been raised by several colleagues and managers, including concerns predating her move to Staff Digitisation. It found that HR's later position on not renewing or converting her contract was driven by those complaints and by concerns about workplace behaviour, not by sex discrimination or by a campaign by the second respondent. It also found that the second respondent had taken steps to seek a contract extension, day-rate increase and permanent role for the claimant, and that matters were later substantially outside his control once HR became involved.

Most of the alleged inappropriate conduct by the second respondent was not found to have occurred as alleged. The tribunal accepted that a comment comparing the claimant's feeling of being treated as guilty until proven guilty to allegations of rape was made, but found it was not made with the purpose or effect required for harassment, and that any such effect would not have been reasonable in the circumstances.

On victimisation, the tribunal accepted that the grievance was capable of being a protected act, but found that HSBC conducted a substantial investigation and that the claimant was treated as a contractor under the applicable process. It found that the grievance was not rejected, the investigation handled, or the contract not renewed because the claimant had raised Equality Act complaints.