In person For the v Respondent — 2024

AB was an agency worker supplying admin support to United Living (South) Limited. For the purposes of this hearing she said she had been sexually assaulted by YZ and that the respondent had failed to deal properly with her complaint. The tribunal was not determining the underlying merits of those allegations; it was deciding only whether the respondent could be held liable for YZ's conduct.

Employment Judge M Warren considered s.109 Equality Act 2010 and the common law concept of agency, relying heavily on Anderson v CAE Crewing Services Limited [2024] EAT 78 and also referring to Ministry of Defence v Kemeh and Bowstead and Reynolds on Agency. The tribunal asked whether YZ was acting as the respondent's employee or as an agent with authority to act on its behalf.

On the evidence, the tribunal found that neither AB nor YZ was employed by the respondent. YZ had been appointed by Simi Homes Limited under a contract dated 18 July 2022 to provide quantity surveying services on a particular project. Fees were paid to Simi Homes, not to YZ personally, and the tribunal found that YZ acted under the authority of Simi Homes rather than United Living. It also accepted evidence that recruitment at the respondent was handled through a central recruitment team, and that YZ had no managerial responsibilities or contractual role on behalf of the respondent.

The tribunal therefore found that YZ was not an agent or employee of the respondent. The claim insofar as it sought to hold the respondent liable for YZ's actions on 15 March 2023 was dismissed. No monetary remedy was awarded in this judgment.