Claimant v Mr A Greystoke
Outcome
Individual claims
Tribunal found that on 2 October 2023 in a hotel room in Nice, Mr Greystoke touched the claimant's arm and back, told her he found her beautiful and said words to the effect of 'if anyone were to ask if he would fuck me he would'. This constituted unwanted conduct of a sexual nature which had the purpose or effect of violating the claimant's dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. Despite being a one-off incident, the tribunal found it serious given the 53-year age gap and significant power imbalance. The claimant's contemporaneous distressed communications with Ms Suglam and Ms Finch corroborated her account. Tribunal accepted her evidence over Mr Greystoke's denial on balance of probabilities.
Tribunal found that the claimant's dismissal on 6 November 2023 did not constitute less favourable treatment because of sex under s.13 EQA. While there were grounds to infer discrimination shifting the burden of proof, the respondents successfully rebutted this by showing the dismissal was due to genuine (albeit possibly unfair or harsh) performance concerns held by multiple witnesses including Mr Kalhor, Ms Zhou and Ms Milne. It was not Mr Greystoke's sole decision. The relationship continued largely as 'business as normal' after the Nice incident and probation was extended on 10 October 2023.
Facts
Claimant aged 29 was employed as Corporate Projects Executive by financial services firm from June to November 2023. On 2 October 2023 in Nice, France, she accompanied her 83-year-old senior manager Mr Greystoke to meet clients. After dinner, he invited her to his hotel room ostensibly to discuss business. Claimant alleged he touched her arm and back, told her she was beautiful and made explicit sexual comments. She reported this immediately to colleagues Ms Suglam and Ms Finch via messages and FaceTime. Her probation was extended on 10 October but she was dismissed on 6 November allegedly for poor performance, though she was also suffering significant health issues including heavy bleeding requiring hospital admission.
Decision
Tribunal accepted claimant's account of sexual harassment on balance of probabilities over Mr Greystoke's denial, finding her evidence credible and corroborated by contemporaneous messages and witness Ms Suglam. The 53-year age gap, power imbalance and context made the conduct serious harassment. However, the tribunal found dismissal was not discriminatory, accepting respondents' evidence that it was a collective decision based on genuine performance concerns unconnected to the Nice incident. Time extended on just and equitable grounds. Injury to feelings award of £20,000 at upper end of middle Vento band plus interest awarded.
Practical note
Even a single incident can constitute serious sexual harassment where there is a substantial age and power differential, and employers should never invite junior employees to hotel rooms for business discussions after drinking, no matter how innocent the intention.
Award breakdown
Vento band: upper_middle
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2201555/2024
- Decision date
- 18 July 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Mr A Greystoke
- Sector
- legal services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Corporate Projects Executive
- Service
- 5 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No