Claimant v Kapia Partners Limited

First respondent conceded unfair dismissal claim following finding that claimant was an employee. Concession recorded in case management order dated 19 September 2023. First respondent's application to withdraw concession was refused.

First respondent conceded wrongful dismissal claim following finding that claimant was an employee. Summary dismissal on 22 December 2022 constituted breach of contract.

Allegation 1 (3 September 2022 sexual advance by second respondent) succeeded as harassment related to sex under s.26(1). Second respondent made unwanted sexual advances and physical contact which violated claimant's dignity and created intimidating environment. Allegations 2 and 3 failed on facts. All other harassment allegations failed under s.26(1) but succeeded under s.26(3).

Allegation 1 succeeded as harassment by unwanted conduct of a sexual nature under s.26(2). Second respondent made unwanted sexual advances including physical touching after claimant rejected initial advance. Conduct had purpose and effect of violating claimant's dignity.

Allegations 4-11 and 15-17 (against second respondent) and 12 and 18 (against both respondents) succeeded under s.26(3) as less favourable treatment because claimant rejected sexual conduct on 3 September 2022. Included: ignoring claimant, performance complaints, exclusion from decisions, role stripped, failure to respond to grievance, and dismissal. Conduct done with purpose of violating dignity and creating intimidating environment, or reasonably had that effect. Allegations 1-3, 13-14, 19 failed under s.26(3).

Allegations 2, 3, 13, 14, 19 failed as direct sex discrimination. Allegations 2-3 failed on facts. Allegations 13-14, 19 failed because: (13) salary mislabelling was banking error affecting male comparator equally; (14) differential dividend was loan repayment to second respondent, not sex-related; (19) no dividends paid to anyone after December 2022. Allegations 1, 4-12, 15-18 dismissed under s.212(1) as they succeeded as harassment.

Grievances of 15 November and 9 December 2022 were protected acts but victimisation claims failed. Allegations 12, 15-18 succeeded as harassment so barred by s.212(1). For other allegations, tribunal found protected acts had no causal impact on respondents' conduct. Decision to dismiss claimant was made before protected acts (notice served 9 November, resolution signed 5 December). First respondent's failure to engage with grievances was to protect legal position on advice that claimant was not employee, not because of protected acts.

Withdrawn by claimant at hearing

Withdrawn by claimant at hearing