Case 3202196/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Stretch v Ballymore Construction Services Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3202196/2019
- Decision date
- 25 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Barrowclough Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Ms Jane Houzer, Mr John Quinlan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Stretch
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss S Stretch worked for Ballymore Construction Services Ltd from January 2017 until her resignation took effect on 30 August 2019. The tribunal found that on 7 September 2017, after a work night out, Mr Jamal Fareed made unwanted sexual advances and comments to her during a lift home. It accepted the claimant's account of the incident, including that she told Mr Gregory and Mr Cullen about it immediately afterwards, and it drew adverse inferences from the respondent's failure to call Mr Gregory as a witness.
The tribunal extended time for the harassment claim under s.123(1) Equality Act 2010 on a just and equitable basis. It accepted that the claimant was 23 at the time, wanted to stay with the respondent and progress her career, did not know she could bring a tribunal claim in 2017, and reasonably relied on support from managers rather than making an immediate formal or police complaint. It rejected the respondent's argument that the delay made a fair trial impossible, and it found that the harassment occurred in the course of employment and that the respondent had not established a reasonable steps defence.
On constructive dismissal, the tribunal accepted that the claimant was told by Mr Hevey that she would not have to work with Mr Fareed again, but later discovered that he was to be transferred to the Goodluck Hope project where she was working. It found that the respondent did not take steps to find another solution, to warn or prepare her, or to avoid her having to work alongside him again, despite her repeated statements that she would have to leave if that happened. The tribunal held that this conduct breached the implied term of trust and confidence, caused her resignation, and was not waived by her working her notice. It therefore upheld the constructive dismissal claim and directed that the case be listed for a remedy hearing.
The tribunal did not determine compensation at this stage, and no monetary award was made in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The tribunal extended time under s.123(1) Equality Act 2010 on a just and equitable basis and found that Mr Fareed made unwanted sexual advances and comments to the claimant in his car on 7 September 2017. It further found the conduct occurred in the course of employment and that the respondent had not shown it took reasonable steps to prevent it. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found the respondent's failure to take steps to keep the claimant away from Mr Fareed after assurances that she would not have to work with him amounted to a fundamental breach of trust and confidence. It accepted that the breach caused her resignation and that working her notice did not amount to affirmation. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.123(1) Equality Act 2010 just and equitable extension
- harassment under s.26 Equality Act 2010
- vicarious liability under s.109 Equality Act 2010
- Jones v Tower Boot Co Ltd
- constructive dismissal: fundamental breach, resignation, no affirmation
- implied term of trust and confidence
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.