PQ and Mrs S Tempest v The Environment Agency and Others: 1802467/2024 and 2502512/2023
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 1802467/2024, 2502512/2023
Between
1. PQ 2. Mrs Samantha TempestClaimant1. The Environment Agency 2. The Department for Environment, Food and RuralRespondent
Before
Employment Judge D N JonesDate 14 November 2025
JUDGMENT
Paragraphs 87.5.1 to 97.5.5 and paragraphs 87.9.1.1 to 87.9.1.5 are struck out on the grounds they have no reasonable prospect of success.
REASONS
[1]The above allegations concern the actions of Elspeth Duemmer-Wrigley. She was not an employee of the first respondent. Nor was it suggested she was an agent of the first respondent. 1 of 2 Case Number: 1802467/2024 and 2502512/2023[2]The submission of the claimants that liability could attach to the first respondent for the conduct of this third party because they condoned and ceased to prohibit it, is catered for in the allegations which remain at paragraphs 87.9.2 and 87.9.3. The attempt to fix liability to the first respondent otherwise falls foul of the authority of Unite the Union v Nailard [2019] ICR 28.[3]Taking the claim at its highest, the above allegations cannot therefore succeed. They are struck out under rule 38. Approved by: