Case 3315014/2022 · Employment Tribunal

In Person For the v Mrs Singh (solicitor, Peninsula) — 2023

Case reference: 3315014/2022
Decision date: 15 November 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Anderson
Venue: Reading
Panel members: C Baggs, F Wright

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

In Person For the

Respondent

Mrs Singh (solicitor, Peninsula)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant worked as a beauty therapist from 4 February 2022 to 8 December 2022. The tribunal accepted that Mr Vikal, the first respondent and owner of the salon, made repeated sexual comments and advances towards her, including repeated requests for a massage after she refused, the hotel incidents on 3 and 4 May 2022, repeated statements that he had feelings for her, a Pornhub link incident, withholding her car keys while asking her to chat, a comment that she had 'sexy legs', repeated touching of her knee and chest badge, and the September 2022 conversation about her getting her teeth sorted, although that last comment was found not to be sexual harassment.

The tribunal rejected the allegation that he asked for a kiss or hug when leaving the hotel room. It also said the separate issue in the list of issues about less favourable treatment for rejecting or submitting to the conduct under s26(3) EqA 2010 was not part of its decision because it had not been pleaded. Overall, it found the claimant credible and the respondent less so, relying on inconsistencies in his account and the detail in the claimant's evidence.

On time limits, the tribunal held that the harassment allegations formed conduct extending over a period ending on 22 September 2022, so the claim was in time. It relied on Hendricks v Metropolitan Police Commissioner and Aziz v FDA when considering linked incidents and a continuing state of affairs. It upheld the sexual harassment claim and the unlawful deduction from wages claim for £1,522.05, holding that the final pay deduction was not authorised because the employer had breached the employment contract by sexually harassing the claimant. Remedy for the harassment claim was left to a separate hearing.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Harassment	The tribunal upheld the sexual harassment claim as a whole. It found that most of the pleaded incidents were made out, including repeated requests for a massage, the 3 and 4 May 2022 hotel incidents, repeated comments that he had feelings for the claimant, the Pornhub link incident, the car-keys incident, the 'sexy legs' comment, and repeated touching of the claimant's knee and chest badge. It did not uphold the allegation that he asked for a kiss and hug when leaving the hotel room, and it found the 'teeth sorted' comment was made but was not of a sexual nature. The tribunal also said the s26(3) less-favourable-treatment issue was not part of the decision because it had not been pleaded.	Upheld	Sex	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	The tribunal upheld the claim for the final pay deduction of £1,522.05. Although the contract contained deduction provisions, the tribunal held the deduction was not authorised because the respondent's sexual harassment amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract and the claimant was entitled to treat the contract as ended.	Upheld	—	£1,522

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £1,522; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

5 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.