Case 3334669/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Ms S Aly, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2020

Case reference: 3334669/2018
Decision date: 27 November 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Smail
Venue: Watford
Panel members: Mr P Hough, Mr C Surrey

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Ms S Aly, Counsel For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant brought complaints of direct sex discrimination, harassment related to sex or sexual harassment, and victimisation. The tribunal found that Mr Sharma repeatedly pursued her for a sexual relationship from early July to late September 2018. It held that this was unwanted conduct of a sexual nature and related to sex, but it rejected the claimant's allegations that he threatened her job or visa, threatened rape, or assaulted her. The tribunal also found that the claimant believed what she was saying and had made several accurate allegations, but that she had exaggerated some matters.

The tribunal found that the claimant first raised the issue with Sunny on 10 September 2018 only to the extent that she said Mr Sharma liked her more than she liked him. It rejected the suggestion that she had earlier made a fuller complaint to him. It also rejected claims that the decision to move her away from SARR, the blocking of her SARR email address, Lady Ranger's 8 October letter, Mr Qazi's investigation, or the absence of an earlier investigation were discriminatory or retaliatory. Mr Gidar, Mr Qazi, Lady Ranger and SARR Management Ltd were found to have no liability.

On victimisation, the tribunal held that Mr Ahuja victimised the claimant on 1 October 2018 by asking her to consider the implications for her job, visa and honour if she pursued her complaint. It also held that Lord Ranger victimised her in the 5 October 2018 telephone call after she had said she was raising allegations of sexual harassment. In that same call, the tribunal found that Lord Ranger harassed her and directly discriminated against her because of sex, using insulting language and reacting to the complaint in a way that created a hostile and offensive environment.

The tribunal dismissed the remainder of the claims. It held that Sun Mark Ltd and Sea Air and Land Forwarding Ltd were jointly and severally vicariously liable for the liabilities of Mr Sharma and Mr Ahuja. Remedy was reserved to a later hearing, so this judgment records liability only and does not set any award.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Harassment	The tribunal found that Mr Sharma repeatedly pursued the claimant for a sexual relationship from early July to late September 2018, which amounted to unwanted sexual attention and harassment under section 26. It rejected the more serious allegations that he threatened her job or visa, threatened rape, or assaulted her.	Upheld	Sex	—
Victimisation	The tribunal upheld victimisation in respect of Mr Ahuja's 1 October 2018 discussion, finding that he sought to dissuade the claimant from pursuing her complaint by asking her to consider the implications for her job, visa and honour. It also upheld victimisation in respect of Lord Ranger's 5 October 2018 telephone call, but rejected the other alleged retaliatory acts concerning the transfer, the SARR email account, Lady Ranger's letter and Mr Qazi's investigation.	Upheld	—	—
Sex discrimination	In the same 5 October 2018 telephone call, Lord Ranger also directly discriminated against the claimant because of sex. The tribunal found that his treatment and language would not have been used towards a man in a comparable situation.	Upheld	Sex	—

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.