Case 3205259/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Tubby v Hills Park Veterinary Group Ltd. — 2021
- Case reference
- 3205259/2021
- Decision date
- 8 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ross Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mr K Rose, Mr S Woodhouse
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Tubby
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked as a receptionist from February 2013 until she resigned on 12 April 2021. The tribunal found a continuing state of affairs for limitation purposes, anchored by specific incidents over time: an August 2013 incident in the spare room, sexualised comments and physical contact in July 2019, a late-February 2021 comment about her partner, and the April 2021 incidents. It attached little weight to the absence of formal grievances because the practice was informal, there was no formal HR officer, and complaints were often dealt with informally.
On liability, the tribunal upheld harassment related to sex under section 26(1) for incidents 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4(ii), and upheld unwanted conduct of a sexual nature under section 26(2) for incidents 1.1, 1.2, 1.3(i) and 1.3(iii). It found the Second Respondent's comments in July 2019 and late February 2021 were sexual in nature, that Blondie and little one were belittling labels, and that the arm-round contact was unwanted. It dismissed the section 26(1) complaint for 1.4(i) and 1.5(i)-(iii), dismissed the section 26(2) complaint for little one, and dismissed the section 26(3)(c) claim because the April 2021 comments were not caused by rejection of earlier conduct.
The tribunal found the cumulative treatment breached the implied term of trust and confidence and that the claimant resigned in response to the 3 April 2021 remark adopting the client's abusive term and the absence of any apology, rather than because of her partner's illness. It held there was no affirmation despite her attending work on 5 and 8 April, found constructive dismissal, unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal, and held that the constructive dismissal itself was harassment related to sex and, in the alternative, direct sex discrimination. Remedy was not decided in this judgment; a later remedy hearing was listed.
Claims and outcomes
7 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 | Section 26(1) harassment related to sex: upheld for incidents 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4(ii); dismissed for 1.4(i) and 1.5(i)-(iii). | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Section 26(2) unwanted conduct of a sexual nature: upheld for incidents 1.1, 1.2, 1.3(i) and 1.3(iii); dismissed for the use of 'little one' at 1.3(ii). | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Section 26(3)(c) harassment because of rejection of sexual advances was dismissed; the tribunal found no causal link between the April 2021 comments and rejection of earlier conduct. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination was dismissed save as to the constructive dismissal/dismissal, which the tribunal held was less favourable treatment because of sex. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The claimant resigned on 12 April 2021 in response to the 3 April 2021 remark and the absence of any apology; the tribunal rejected affirmation. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The respondents admitted that if constructive dismissal were proved, the dismissal would be unfair; the tribunal found constructive dismissal was proved. |
Legal tests applied
19 references- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- Barclays Bank v Kapur
- Metropolitan Police Commissioner v Hendricks
- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- Dhaliwal v Richmond Pharmacology
- Grant v HM Land Registry
- Bakkali v Greater Manchester Buses (South) Ltd
- Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust v Aslam
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board
- R(E) v Governing Body of JFS
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International
- Western Excavation Limited v Sharp
- Bournemouth University v Buckland
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust
- Waltham Forest LBC v Omilaju
- Driscoll v V&P Global Limited
- section 98 ERA 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.