Claimant v Environment Agency
Outcome
Individual claims
Certain allegations at paragraphs 87.5.1 to 97.5.5 and 87.9.1.1 to 87.9.1.5 were struck out because they concerned the actions of a third party, Elspeth Duemmer-Wrigley, who was not an employee or agent of the first respondent. The tribunal found that liability could not attach to the respondent for third party conduct in this manner, following Unite the Union v Nailard. The allegations had no reasonable prospect of success.
Facts
This was a preliminary hearing concerning claims brought by two claimants against four respondents including public bodies. Certain allegations concerned the actions of Elspeth Duemmer-Wrigley, a third party who was neither an employee nor agent of the first respondent. The claimants argued that the first respondent could be liable because they condoned and ceased to prohibit her conduct.
Decision
The tribunal struck out specific paragraphs of the claim relating to the third party's conduct under rule 38, finding they had no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal held that liability could not attach to the first respondent for third party conduct in the manner alleged, following Unite the Union v Nailard. Other allegations at paragraphs 87.9.2 and 87.9.3 relating to condonation remained.
Practical note
An employer cannot be held liable for the discriminatory conduct of third parties who are neither employees nor agents, unless specific statutory provisions or other remaining allegations cover the respondent's own failure to act.
Legal authorities cited
Case details
- Case number
- 1802467/2024
- Decision date
- 14 November 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- regulator
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister