Case 3300617/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs V Keegan v Regal Health and Wellbeing Ltd (trading as The Massage Company) — 2025
- Case reference
- 3300617/2024
- Decision date
- 17 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge George
- Panel members
- Ms H Gunnell, Mr J Vaghela
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs V Keegan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints of harassment related to sex and/or sexual harassment, and unauthorised deductions from wages, against Regal Health and Wellbeing Ltd (trading as The Massage Company). The case was heard at Reading by video over four days in November 2025 with deliberation in chambers in January 2026 before Employment Judge George with non-legal members Ms H Gunnell and Mr J Vaghela.
The Tribunal unanimously found one harassment complaint well-founded — the Centre Manager's August 2024 comment to the claimant that he liked "girls, short, with blue eyes and a big bust" (LOI 50.c). The complaint had been brought outside the primary three-month time limit but the Tribunal extended time on the just-and-equitable basis, citing the claimant's mental health, family responsibilities and short delay. The remaining harassment complaints were dismissed, partly unanimously and partly by majority (Judge George and Mr Vaghela; Mr Gunnell dissenting).
The unauthorised-deduction-from-wages complaint was dismissed because the £400 training-fee deduction was authorised by the claimant's contract on resignation before the end of probation. The Tribunal further found that the proven harassment was not, in any meaningful sense, the cause of the claimant's resignation, so financial loss did not flow from it. Compensation for injury to feelings caused by the proven act was reserved to a remedy hearing on 13 March 2026.
Claims and outcomes
4 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 | One allegation of harassment related to sex / sexual harassment succeeded — the Centre Manager's August 2024 comment to the claimant: "I like girls, short, with blue eyes and a big bust" (LOI 50.c). Time was extended on a just-and-equitable basis. Compensation deferred to a remedy hearing on 13 March 2026; figure not yet determined. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Remaining complaints of harassment related to sex / sexual harassment were not well founded and were dismissed; in part by majority (Judge George and Mr Vaghela) with NLM Gunnell dissenting in part. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | The remaining sex-related allegations covered by the harassment framework were dismissed; the Tribunal proceeded under the s.26 EqA 2010 harassment route. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Free-standing unauthorised-deduction-from-wages complaint failed; the £400 training-fee deduction was contractually authorised on resignation before the end of probation. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 123 Equality Act 2010 (just and equitable extension of time)
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.