Claimant v West Berkshire Brewery Plc (In administration)
Outcome
Individual claims
This was a preliminary hearing dealing only with joinder of individual respondents. The substantive claims have not yet been determined.
This was a preliminary hearing dealing only with joinder of individual respondents. The substantive claims have not yet been determined.
Relates to an alleged incident on 26 June 2021 where R2 (the Managing Director) allegedly groped the claimant. The substantive claim has not yet been determined.
Claimant alleges sexual harassment by R2. The substantive claim has not yet been determined.
Allegations of victimisation following the claimant's complaints about the alleged sexual assault. The substantive claim has not yet been determined.
This was a preliminary hearing dealing only with joinder of individual respondents. The substantive claims have not yet been determined.
Facts
The claimant was employed by a brewery company from July 2018 to August 2021. She resigned following an alleged sexual assault by the Managing Director (R2) on 26 June 2021 and dissatisfaction with how her grievance was handled. The employer entered administration in December 2021. The claimant brought discrimination, harassment and unfair dismissal claims, initially naming only the company. In December 2021 she applied to add four individuals as respondents. After procedural delays, a judge added them in December 2023. This preliminary hearing considered applications by R2 and R3 (HR Manager) to set aside the joinder orders.
Decision
The tribunal refused R2's application to set aside his joinder, finding the balance of hardship favoured the claimant given the seriousness of the allegations, the company's insolvency, and that R2 could be personally liable under section 110 Equality Act. The tribunal allowed R3's application, finding she was acting throughout on instructions from directors and legal advisers and should be protected by vicarious liability principles. An anonymisation order was granted to protect both parties given the sexual allegations.
Practical note
Tribunals have wide discretion to join individual respondents to discrimination claims even after time limits expire, applying the balance of hardship test, but will consider whether individuals were decision-makers or merely following instructions from senior management when determining whether joinder is in the interests of justice.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3322565/2021
- Decision date
- 14 March 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- self
Employment details
- Service
- 3 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister