Cases3313142/2023

Claimant v Change, Grow, Live

5 May 2025Before Employment Judge Mr J S BurnsWatfordremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Harassment(sex)struck out

The tribunal struck out the sex harassment claim against both respondents on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The alleged harasser, Saul Trower, was an employee of a subcontractor (Emerging Futures), not an agent of the respondents. The subcontractor agreement expressly excluded agency. Following Ministry of Defence v Kemeh, T was not acting as an agent of the respondent when delivering training; his authority derived from his employment with EF, not from any agency relationship with the respondent.

Facts

The claimant alleged sex harassment by Saul Trower, who rubbed her hand and arm and made inappropriate comments during a training session on 5 June 2023. Trower was employed by Emerging Futures (EF), a separate organisation subcontracted by the first respondent to deliver training services. The subcontractor agreement expressly stated that EF was not acting as an agent of the respondent. When the claimant complained, the respondent referred the matter to EF to investigate rather than dealing with it directly.

Decision

The tribunal struck out the sex harassment claim against both respondents, holding it had no reasonable prospect of success. Following Ministry of Defence v Kemeh, the tribunal found that Trower was not acting as an agent of the respondent but as an employee of the subcontractor EF. His authority to deliver training derived from his employment with EF under the subcontract, not from any agency relationship with the respondent. The mere fact he was performing work benefiting the respondent was insufficient to establish agency.

Practical note

An employee of a subcontractor delivering services on a client's premises is not automatically the client's agent for discrimination purposes; agency requires cogent evidence of authority derived from the alleged principal, not merely from performing work for their benefit.

Legal authorities cited

Unite the Union v Nailard [2018] EWCA Civ 120Ministry of Defence v Kemeh [2014] EWCA Civ 91

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.109(1)Equality Act 2010 s.109(3)

Case details

Case number
3313142/2023
Decision date
5 May 2025
Hearing type
strike out
Hearing days
1
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Claimant representation

Represented
No