Ms C Woolfrey v Reed Specialist Recruitment Ltd and others: 2207052/2021
JUDGMENT
The claims are dismissed.REASONS
[1]The unfair dismissal claim had been previously struck out for lack of service.[2]The remaining claims (harassment related to disability and discrimination arising from disability) and issues were identified in paragraphs 13 to 14 of a record of a case management discussion held on 23/2/22. For ease of reference these are set out in a Schedule below.[3]That the Claimant was disabled at the relevant times by chronic anxiety was conceded by the Respondents.[4]The documents were in three bundles namely a core bundle of 288 pages, an additional bundle of 114 pages and a missing pages bundle of bundle of 49 pages. The missing pages bundle, which had been served by the First Respondent on the Claimant as a supplementary bundle earlier this month, consisted of uncontroversial documents such as a previous case management order, the Claimant’s employment contract, her employment application documents and text messages referred to already in witness statements. The Claimant objected, but we decided to admit the missing pages bundle as it contained relevant material most of which would or should have been familiar to the Claimant anyway, and which we considered it was reasonable to expect the Claimant to be able to deal with.[5]We received a note on the law from Mr Ross, and written final submissions from each side.[6]We heard evidence from the Claimant and then from the Respondents Ms C Huckle (Regional MD); Ms N Hewitt, (Consultant) Ms L Goodger (a regional manager and the Claimant’s ex - line manager) and Mr Jones (a regional director).[7]As an adjustment for the Claimant’s disability, we had numerous breaks during the hearing and generally tried to facilitate the Claimant’s participation and reduce the impact of the proceedings on her. She was emotional at times, but managed to engage fully in the process and read out lengthy final submissions at the end.[8]In final submissions she expressed herself satisfied with the Tribunal’s conduct of the hearing.[9]The Claimant made an application for her name to be anonymised. Having regard to Rule 50 and to the content of these reasons, we see no justification for that. Credibility[10]During the recruitment process the Claimant provided false information to the First Respondent about her previous employment with a third party HRGO, and supressed the fact that she had been employed by another company namely Core Atlantic Ltd for part of the time she said she had worked for HRGO. We find that these misrepresentations must have been deliberate on her part.[11]When asked in cross-examination whether she had brought a Tribunal claim before, her first response was to deny this. It was only when the name of the former employer (Core Atlantic) was put to her that she agreed she had brought a Tribunal claim, through solicitors.[12]During recruitment in her New Starter Form submitted on 5 May 2021, the Claimant failed to answer truthfully the question put to her about days’ work lost through illness in the last two years and the reasons for that. She not only had days’ work lost to illness, but months, as shown by her medical records . Her explanation for this failure was rambling and incomprehensible.[13]The Claimant’s job offer and contract were subject to receipt of satisfactory references. The First Respondent, which trades as a recruitment agency, reserved the right to terminate employment on receipt of an unsatisfactory reference. Satisfactory references were never received, notwithstanding the fact that the Claimant worked for First Respondent for 4.5 months. Despite repeated chasing, the Claimant failed to comply. This matter was being discussed in August 2021. As of 13 September 2021, the screening team had still been unable to obtain references and requested alternative proof of periods of employment. The Claimant said in cross-examination that she had received the email but had not replied. She did not provide the information requested. We infer that the Claimant had not been honest about her employment history and so could not comply.[14]These matters reflect badly on the Claimant’s credibility.[15]Generally, we regarded the Respondents as more reliable witnesses than the Claimant and we prefer their version of events where it differs from that of the Claimant. Findings of fact DisabilityFindings of fact
[16]In June 2019 the Claimant’s partner had a cycling accident and suffered a brain haemorrhage which caused anger and impulse control issues on his part which in turn had a negative impact on the Claimant.[17]In May 2020 the Claimant reported to her doctor that she was drinking 7 bottles of wine per week, and the doctor diagnosed her as suffering from “a mixed anxiety and depressive disorder’.[18]In September 2020, the Claimant reported to medical professionals and the police, that she thought her drink might have been spiked during a night out. This aggravated her mental health condition.[19]The Claimant has referred additionally to suffering “panic attacks”. There is little or no medical evidence to support this apart from a very short letter from her GP dated 17/9/21 (the same date that the Claimant applied for ACAS EC) which appears to have been procured by the Claimant for purposes of this litigation.[20]It is true that the Claimant did state to the First Respondent’s HR in an email dated 8/7/21 “I am in a panic and this is causing me a lot of stress” but that was in connection with her suffering bad effects from a Covid vaccination. The Claimant has also attempted to attribute her behaviour on 26 and 27 August 2021 to “panic attacks” but there are other, in our view more credible, explanations for this.[21]We do not find it proved that the Claimant’s disability caused panic attacks.[22]That the Claimant was disabled at the relevant times by chronic anxiety is conceded and we have dealt with the matter on that basis. Respondent’s knowledge of disability[23]When being recruited by the First Respondent, the Claimant answered questions in writing stating that she did not have a disability, was not on medication and had not been on sick leave in the last two years. At no time during employment did she tell the Respondents that she had been diagnosed with anxiety.[24]During employment she confirmed in writing that she did not need counselling.[25]The Claimant told colleagues at work during 2021 about the fact that her partner had had an accident, and that she thought her drink might have been spiked the previous September. She also referred at work to other problems in her life such as alleged spiderinfestations of one of her homes, allergies etc. However, it does not follow from this that her colleagues knew or should have known that she was disabled by mental ill-health as a result of any of these matters.[26]When dismissing the Claimant in early September 2021 Ms Goodger was aware that the Claimant had been behaving oddly on the night of 26/8/21 but thought this was likely to be the result of illegal drug abuse by the Claimant. The Claimant had also appeared unwell on the morning of 27/8/21 but this Ms Goodger attributed to the fact that the Claimant was still recovering from the night before and had a sleepless night trying to get access to her boyfriend’s flat, her keys to which she had lost.[27]When dealing with the Claimant’s grievance later on in September 2021, Mr Jones, having discussed the matter in detail with the Claimant and asked her about disability, concluded that the events of 26/27 August 2021 were “a one off” and he “couldn’t see a pattern of mental ill-health”.[28]We find that the letter from the GP dated 17/9/21 was not sent to the Respondents at the time and was disclosed by the Claimant only in 2022.[29]We find that the Respondents did not know and could not be expected reasonably to know that the Claimant was disabled at the relevant times. The Claimant’s employment and events leading up to termination[30]The Claimant was employed by the First Respondent between 19 April 2021 and 8 September 2021 as a Business Manager in Business Support at its Bury Street offices.[31]Under her contract she had to serve a 9-month probation before being confirmed in her position.[32]In various meetings during the months preceding the Claimant’s dismissal, Ms Lynsey Goodger, Regional Manager and Collette Huckle, Regional Managing Director, spoke to the Claimant about their various concerns regarding the Claimant’s conduct and performance. These included the Claimant arriving at the office late or being late logging into the IT system when working from home, leaving the office early, failing to attend the office when expected, failing to action tasks when requested, talking loudly across the office, and friction with other team members.[33]The Claimant was unproductive, placing only one permanent employee with a client, and that placement being abortive from the client’s point of view and leading to complaints from the client against the Claimant. The Claimant failed to earn enough for the First Respondent to cover her own salary.[34]Ms Huckle’s management of the Claimant was efficient and supportive. Ms Goodger’s may have been less so and she also does not appear to have kept adequate records of her dealings with the Claimant.[35]The Claimant was on friendly terms with a colleague Ms N Hewitt. The two saw each other as friends and went to lunch together regularly throughout the Claimant’s employment. After the Claimant was dismissed, but not before, she made a passing reference in her subsequent grievance to Ms Hewitt having made a few “spiteful comments”, but did not elaborate and she failed to make any specific complaints during the grievance about the allegations she now makes against Ms Hewitt.[36]The first allegation now made is that Ms Hewitt, in or around June 2021 said words to the effect that “You don’t have to watch Eastenders or soaps, having [the Claimant] here in the office is like watching a live drama”; We reject the Claimant’s evidence about this. We accept Ms Hewitt’s version that she did on occasion state that her own (Ms Hewitt’s) personal life was like a soap opera.[37]The second allegation is that on 20 July 2021, when the Claimant fell over a scooter in the office, Ms Hewitt laughed and said “Of course it would be you that fell” and subsequently said (when the Claimant told somebody she had had a fall), “No! you didn’t fall over, did you? (We haven’t heard that story before much, have we)?”.[38]We do not find this to have occurred. It is notable that when the “falling over a scooter” incident was discussed and investigated at the grievance stage, the Claimant failed to complain about Ms Hewitt at all and instead stated that Ms Hewitt had assisted her in finding and using the first-aid box. In addition, in a text sent on 20 July 2021 to her sister the Claimant wrote “Of course claire would be the one to fall over a skooter (sic) But that’s you lot taking the piss x”. This appears to be a reference to the Claimant’s family rather than Ms Hewitt saying or thinking that the Claimant would be the one to fall over.[39]The third allegation is that on 5 August 2021, Ms Hewitt said words to the effect “Just slip a little something in there, like Rohypnol, it’s nothing”. We can see that this incident took place at about 16.13 because at that time the Claimant sent a text to a work colleague which reads in part “Did you hear that convo…She is such a bitch sometimes Nikke”[40]It is clear that something said by Ms Hewitt had upset the Claimant, but we prefer Ms Hewitt’s version, which is that she had been commenting on mixing collagen powder (which she took to aid healthy skin and hair) and not Rohypnol, into coffee. However, the Claimant took this as a comment on drink-spiking aimed at her and reciprocated with a joke of her own about a mother mistreating her child (which latter joke may well have been aimed at Ms Hewitt, who tragically had been bereaved of a young child).[41]We do not find that this spat was reported (as the Claimant claimed) to Ms Goodger. We do not find that Ms Goodger said about this “You are all adults, you should just be able to work out how to just get on”.[42]In any event it appears that, despite the spat, the Claimant and Ms Hewitt remained friends, and continued going out to lunch together.[43]On 26 August 2021, at a drinks party arranged by the First Respondent for its employees, the Claimant behaved oddly. The Claimant had been drinking Prosecco before the event. Miss Huckle noticed that the Claimant was sweating a lot, talking very fast and acting out of character. One minute she was on the dancefloor and the next minute she would be in conversation with people invading their personal space, which was a concern from a Covid19 point of view. There was a large hole in her tights, and she did not seem herself. She interrupted Ms C Harvey (the MD) when the latter was speaking to someone else. Ms Goodger also noticed this behaviour and thought that the Claimant and a man called Dominic, who had been seen retiring to the lavatories together, had been taking illegal drugs. Ms Huckle offered the Claimant a drink of water.[44]After a few hours at the party, the Claimant left in a taxi to her partner’s flat. She found on arrival that she had lost her keys and the neighbours had to assist her. A locksmith was called to enable her to get into the flat but this was not until the early hours of the morning.[45]The next day, 27 August 2021, contrary to the instructions of Ms Goodger, (who had texted her telling her to stay at home that day) the Claimant attended the office at 10:30am looking dishevelled (“shaking and puffy-eyed” to use the Claimant’s own phrase). She appeared unkempt and her clothes were in disarray. Her hair was un-brushed and she was sweating. The Claimant explained that she had had to get the lock changed at her partner’s flat. She appeared to be terrified by what the partner would do to her as a consequence.[46]Ms C Harvey (the MD) was at the office and was displeased to see the Claimant arriving late at work in that condition.[47]Ms Goodger asked if she could call anyone such as a friend or family member to support the Claimant. She may have suggested that the Claimant should see a doctor. Ms Goodger said that the Claimant looked “dishevelled” and said she should go home as she was unfit to work. We do not find that she said that the Claimant “was a mess”.[48]Ms Goodger then had a conversation with Ms C Harvey and then phoned HR for advice on how to terminate the Claimant’s probation and employment.[49]On 1 September 2021, the Claimant was invited to a meeting with Simon Lambert, Area Manager. During that meeting, Ms Goodger informed the Claimant that she had failed her probation on the grounds of her conduct. The Claimant received one weeks’ notice of termination.[50]The Claimant complained in writing about what she described as a “mental health dismissal” and alleged bullying by Ms Goodger.[51]Mr M Jones, Senior Regional Director, was appointed to investigate the grievance. On 9 September 2021, Mr Jones and Mr Dean-Andrews met with the Claimant to discuss her grievance in more detail. The Claimant says that the way Mr Jones treated her then made her feel as though she was to blame for the incident the previous year as when she told him she believed her drink had been spiked and this had led to her panic attacks, he repeatedly asked her if she was late for work or had logged in late.[52]We have read the transcript of the meeting (pages 213 CB onwards and in particular page 214, which seemed to be the focus of the Claimant’s complaint in this regard) and which transcript we accept as accurate, and we see nothing to support any reasonable complaint against Mr Jones, who conducted the conversation politely and appropriately throughout.[53]On 27 September 2021, following a thorough investigation into the specific issues raised by the Claimant, Mr Jones sent the Claimant a detailed grievance outcome letter. For the reasons set out in that letter, the substantive elements of the Claimant’s grievance were not upheld. The Claimant did not appeal the grievance decision.[54]The Claimant says that the outcome of the hearing, sent on 27 September 2021, implied that she had gone out drinking and had brought the situation on herself. This appears to be a reference to the following paragraph in the grievance outcome letter (page 243) : ‘You explained that you were staying at your partner’s flat that evening but when you arrived you realised that you had lost the keys and you were locked out. You told us that you had a panic attack(i) because you were locked out in south London by yourself late at night, and(ii) you were worried about what your partner would say. You explained that you had to get a locksmith out at 1am in the morning (you provided me with an invoice as evidence)’.[55]Despite the repeated use of the word “you”, which was somewhat unavoidable in the circumstances, we see nothing wrong with this paragraph or indeed anything else in the grievance outcome.[56]The Claimant applied for ACAS EC on 17/9/21 and received her certificate the same day. She presented her ET claim on 4/11/21. Relevant law Disability Related DiscriminationRelevant law
[57]Section 15 provides that a person discriminates against a disabled person if A treats B unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of B’s disability and A cannot show that the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.[58]The ‘something’ that causes the unfavourable treatment need not be the main or sole reason, but must have at least a significant (or more than trivial) influence on the unfavourable treatment, and so amount to an effective reason for or cause of it.[59]An employer has a defence to a claim under s. 15(2) EqA if it did not know, or could not reasonably be expected to know, that B had a disability.[60]It is for the ET to weigh the reasonable needs of the R’s business against the discriminatory effect of the decision to dismiss and to make its own assessment of whether the former outweigh the latter. Harassment[61]Section 26 provides that a person harasses another where the harasser engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, which has the purpose or effect of violating the others dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading humiliating or offensive environment for her. In deciding whether conduct has this effect the following must be taken into account : the perception of the other, the other circumstances of the case and whether it is reasonable for conduct to have that effect. Onus of proof[62]Section 136 provides that it there are facts from which a court could decide, in the absence of any other explanation that a person has contravened a provision under the EA, the court must hold that the contravention occurred, unless the person shows that he did not contravene the provision.Conclusions
[63]We do not find that any of the alleged events relied on as harassment occurred as described by the Claimant. We have set out above our findings about what did happen in each case. These events were not related to the Claimant’s disability and did not have the prescribed harassing purpose or effect.[64]The same matters are relied on under section 15. These events did not arise from panic attacks.[65]We are not satisfied that the Claimant’s behaviour on 26/27 August 2021 arose from panic attacks, whether arising from her disability or at all. The cause of her behaviour at the party has a more likely alternative cause, namely the Claimant having consumed an illegal drug. Her late arrival and behaviour at the office on 27/8/21 was caused by her activities at the party the night before, losing her keys, having to call the locksmith, sleeplessness and fear of her boyfriend.[66]While the behaviour on 26 and 27 August coming to the attention of Ms C Harvey (the MD) was the catalyst for the Claimant’s probation review meeting on 1 September 2021 and her dismissal, it was not the sole reason. Her previous poor performance and attendance and her failing to conform to the requirements of the role as a team leader were the other causes.[67]We do not find that the dismissal was because of something arising from disability. Alternatively, if it was, we would in any event have found that the dismissal was justified in the circumstances because the Claimant’s poor performance and conduct were incompatible with the First Respondent’s business objectives.[68]We record for the sake of completeness that even if the Claimant had not been dismissed in early September 2021, we find that she would have been dismissed shortly thereafter in any event as she had failed to produce references and her previous misrepresentations prior to recruitment were coming to light.[69]We record further for the sake of completeness that we have not found any discrimination or harassment and so no question of a continuing act arises. The claims in13.1.1 and13.1.2 of the Schedule were brought out of time in any event and in the circumstances - especially the Claimant’s failure to raise them in the grievance - we would not have regarded it as just and equitable to extend time to entertain those matters. Hence the claims are dismissed. J S BurnsConclusions
[1]The Claimant sent an email to the Tribunal dated 26/7/22 complaining that her name had not been anonymised in the Judgment as requested by her and about the admission of various documents in evidence at the trial/full merits hearing (FMH).[2]She sent an email dated 8/8/22 complaining about:• EJ J Burns’s (ie my - I refer to myself in the first person from now in these Reasons) conduct during the FMH;• Miss Helena Smith’s (Respondent’s Solicitors’s) conduct of the case preparation process leading up to the FMH;• Mr Ross’s (Respondents’ Counsels’) “manner” at a preliminary hearing before EJ Spencer on 24 June 22;• “the refusal of the FMH Tribunal to recognise that the Claimant had been the victim of a crime”;• my indication that the Tribunal were not interested in any “Nuclear Security Clearance” which the Claimant may now have; and• her view that she had not had a fair trial and asking for the judgment to be revoked and asking for a new trial to be organised.[3]The Claimant sent a further email on 9/8/22 stating that she feels that I “hate women or maybe just (the Claimant)”.[4]Contrary to the Tribunal Rules, none of these emails from the Claimant were copied by the Claimant to the Respondents, despite the facts that(i) one of the matters the Claimant complains about against the Respondents and their solicitors is poor email communication and(ii) in a CMO signed by EJ H Norris on 23/2/22 and sent to the Claimant it is stated “Please ensure you comply with Rule 92 (Schedule 1, Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013) and copy to the other party/parties any communication you send to the Tribunal and state that you have done so (save any application under Rule 32).”[5]Despite this, I have decided to treat the Claimant’s emails referred to above as an application for reconsideration under Rule 71, her main complaints being set out italics and my responses following: The Claimant’s name had not been anonymised in the Judgment as requested by her[6]EJ Spencer commented on this issue in her notes for the CMO dated 24/6/22 as follows: “The Claimant said during the hearing that Employment Judge Norris had agreed that her name would not appear on any judgment because of the need to refer to the incident that occurred in September 2020. In fact, as far as I am aware, no Anonymity Order has been made, although Employment Judge Norris in paragraph 11 of the case management summary suggested that the parties might wish to give some thought to the question of as to any whether any such order might be appropriate. I asked Mr Ross if the Respondent objected to any such Order, but he had not had any instructions on the point. In any event (as I explained to the Claimant), in considering whether to make an anonymity order the Tribunal will need to balance the Claimant’s right to privacy and other Convention rights against the principle of open justice. If the Claimant considers that such an order might be appropriate, then she must raise it with the Tribunal at the full hearing.’[7]I had read this Note, and raised the issue myself with the parties at the beginning of the FMH (trial). The Claimant asked for her name to be anonymised. She did not articulate any reason very well but we presumed that this was because a background fact in the case contributing to her mental illhealth was that she had stated to police and health professionals that she thought she might have had her drink spiked and had been raped during a night out in 2020.[8]Mr Ross, on behalf of the Respondent, having taken instructions since 24/6/22, told us at the beginning of the FMH that the Respondents objected to the Claimant’s name being anonymised, as there was no justification for this.[9]The Tribunal decided to wait until the end of the FMH and the formulation of the judgment and reasons on liability, before deciding whether or not we should anonymise the Claimant in them.[10]The evidence on the possible drink-spiking was that the Claimant believed that this might have occurred, and she feared she might have been raped, but whether or not she had been had not been ascertained subsequently (although apparently all tests came back negative). Whether or not the Claimant had been mistreated in this way was not one of the issues which we needed to decide.[11]That the Claimant had had various personal problems in her life (including her beliefs/fears about a possible episode in 2020) which had led to her mental ill-health, was accepted from the outset and beyond this we did not need to go.[12]We did not refer in our Judgment or Reasons to the possibility that the Claimant might have been raped and we made no reference to any sexual matters. As stated in paragraph 9 of the Reasons, having considered Rule 50 and having balanced the Claimant’s right to privacy and other Convention rights against the principle of open justice, we concluded that we should not anonymise the Claimant’s name.[13]In her subsequent email dated 26/7/22 the Claimant has written the following “THE ACCUSATIONS MUST NOT BE PUT OUT TO THE UNIVERSE! IT WILL DESTROY MY LIFE AND COULD STOP ME FROM WORKING IF COMPANIES WERE TO READ THAT IT PORTRAYS ME TO BE A LYING, CALCULATED DRUG ADDICT”. Please stop this from being published. I need help.”[14]Hence, it appears that her main, if not only, reason for the Claimant now wanting her name to be anonymised in our Judgment and Reasons is not any sexual issue, but rather the potential negative effect on her of publicity of our findings of fact about other matters (ie the issues in the claims). This is not a good reason to anonymise or for making an exemption to the rule that Employment Tribunal Judgments and Reasons including the parties’ names are published unredacted on the Register. The admission of various documents in evidence at the trial.[15]The Claimant complains about the admission of what we have referred to as the “missing pages bundle” in paragraph 4 of the Reasons for the Judgment.[16]The said paragraph states that the bundle had been served as a supplementary bundle “earlier this month” ie in July 2022. We were informed by Mr Ross that according to his instructions most of the 49 pages in the missing pages bundle had been served a week or so before the trial and the remainder on 17/7/22, about 2 days before the trial.[17]The Claimant did not object to the admission of most of the documents but objected to the admission of the documents which, we were told, she herself had created and or submitted to the Respondent when she had applied for employment with it. As appears from our Reasons, (see paragraphs 10- 13 and 68) these were relevant documents not only going to credibility but also to the question of how long the Claimant’s employment would have lasted in any event.[18]These were documents which, or the contents of which, the Claimant must have been familiar with and, despite her disability, we were not convinced that she would suffer any real forensic prejudice in being required to deal with and answer questions about them. It is preferable for decisions to be made based on more rather than less information.[19]When discussing the missing pages bundle, the Claimant said she had not read it. I said she should have done so. I thought that it was a short bundle and that the Claimant had had time to read it even if it had come to her recently.[20]We told the Claimant that if there were any further relevant documents in her possession on the subject of her recruitment by the Respondent, she was at liberty to send them to us, but she did not do so.[21]We were taken by Mr Ross through each page in the “missing pages bundle” before we adjourned to consider whether to admit them or not and we were unanimous in concluding that they should be allowed in.[22]We were aware of the terms of the directions made by EJ Spencer on 24/6/22 which included the following “The Respondent will add to the existing supplemental bundle the Respondent’s “Manager’s guide to mental health”. Save for the addition of that document, no further documents are to be added to the existing bundles, save as directed by the Tribunal at the full hearing.’[23]These directions did not preclude and in fact had anticipated that there may be further documents the admission of which the full tribunal would have to consider, as in fact we did.[24]To the extent that the Claimant in her recent emails is complaining about the manner in which bundles other than the “missing pages bundle” was compiled or served on her before the FMH, this is not something she raised or complained about to us during the FMH and, that being the case, it is not open to her to do so now.[25]In any event, the Claimant showed during the FMH that she was reasonably familiar with the documents in the bundles and conducted her cross-examination of the Respondents’ witnesses against those documents. My conduct during the trial,[26]I was aware of the Claimant’s disability as well as the fact that she was a litigant-in-person and I discussed this with the Members before the FMH started. When the FMH started, I explained the procedure and asked the Claimant to let me know if she needed breaks or any other adjustment I could provide to try to facilitate her participation.[27]Most of the time during the FMH the Claimant was courteous and appropriate in her manner.[28]The Claimant complains that I raised my voice at her on several occasions.[29]I agree that on one occasion, (during the Claimant’s final submissions) I raised my voice but only because the Claimant had carried on talking across me and I needed to make myself heard on the CVP audio. The occasion was when the Claimant, not for the first time, was making a personal attack on Mr Ross (who was the Respondent's Counsel, and whose cross-examination of the Claimant during the trial - while searching and effective - was well within reasonable professional standards) and who (as I had already explained to the Claimant at some length) did not merit what the Claimant was saying about him. I did not think it right for the Claimant in final submissions in a public hearing to continue making inappropriate, intemperate remarks about Mr Ross so I interrupted the Claimant, told her I would not listen to her further on that topic and asked her to move on, which she did.[30]I deny raising my voice in addressing the Claimant on any other occasion.[31]The Claimant complains that I “told (her) not to discuss my sexual assault details again, he said men find it difficult and uncomfortable”.[32]The Claimant had a tendency to dwell unnecessarily on the personal details of the aftermath of her having complained to the police that she thought she may have been raped following her drink being spiked. For example, she referred several times during the FMH to her having had anal and vaginal swabs etc. She had also put medical documents about this of a highly personal nature in the bundle. This tendency was not only contrary to the concerns she appears to have professed to EJ Spencer about publicity being given to the possible sexual assault, but it was entirely gratuitous and irrelevant to the issues. I told her politely that we did not see the necessity to dwell on these personal sexual matters in a public hearing and would prefer that she did not.[33]The Claimant complains “When (i) read the witness statement of Rebecca Hunter he said "why did she think your drink was spiked????? He said "is that what you do Miss Woolfrey?? do you talk about it every time something happens or goes wrong????”[34]At one point in the evidence when she was complaining about some conduct of a male Respondent’s manager, I suggested that as a man he may have been embarrassed to discuss these private sexual matters with the Claimant and I did ask her why she reverted to this subject so readily. This was a legitimate question in my view as it went to the reasonableness of the Claimant’s criticism of the manager.[35]The Claimant complains that I stated "ITS COMMON SENCE MISS WOOLFREY!, another time he said "YOU ARE CONFUSING PEOPLE MISS WOOLFREY... WHAT ARE YOU ASKING".[36]It is true that I had to intervene on numerous occasions during the Claimant’s cross-examination of the Respondent’s witnesses to assist her to formulate proper questions rather than just making speeches or hectoring. These interventions were necessary and appropriate. I may well have uttered these words on one or more of these occasions.[37]I am satisfied that I maintained a professional and reasonably cordial atmosphere throughout the hearing and did so equally with both sides.[38]Near the end of her final submissions the Claimant stated that she was satisfied with the Tribunal’s conduct of the Hearing.[39]I do not hate women or the Claimant in particular. Miss Helena Smith (Respondent’s Solicitor) conduct of the process leading up to the trial.[40]I note that the Claimant appears to have raised something along these lines at the CMH before EJ Spencer on 24 June 2022 as appears from Note 6: The Claimant has been anxious to refer the Tribunal to a number of matters occurring after her employment had ended, including issues arising in case preparation. I have explained that those matters are not relevant at the liability stage but may possibly become relevant (if the Claimant is successful in all or part of her claim) at the remedy stage. For that reason, it was agreed with the parties that the hearing beginning on 19th July will deal with liability only.[41]During the FMH the only case preparation issue which was clearly raised by the Claimant was in relation to the “missing pages bundle”, which I have discussed above.[42]The Claimant did not make during the trial the complaints she now makes against Miss Smith. I am unwilling to deal with these now, especially as the Claimant’s recent emails have not been copied to Miss Smith. In any event any such matters would not have affected the outcome of the case. Mr Ross’s “manner” at a preliminary hearing before EJ Spencer on 24 June 22,[43]The Claimant has not provided any details about this but, in the light of her unjustified complaints about Mr Ross at the FMH, I am sure there is nothing in it. If there had been, EJ Spencer would no doubt have dealt with it then. I am unwilling to deal with this complaint now, especially as the Claimant’s recent emails have not been copied to Mr Ross. The refusal of the Tribunal to recognise that the Claimant had been the victim of a crime[44]I have already dealt with this above. As far as we could see there was no conclusive evidence to show that in fact the Claimant had been drink-spiked and/or raped and in any event whether or not she had been was not one of the issues we had to decide. My indication that the Tribunal were not interested in any “Nuclear Security Clearance” which the Claimant may now have,[45]The Claimant’s current security clearances with a different employer was irrelevant to the question whether she had misled the Respondent about her previous employment history, so we did not wish to spend time on this. That she had not had a fair trial and asking for the judgment to be revoked and for a new trial[46]The Tribunal was unanimous in its decision and the Reasons were formulated and approved not only by me but also by the Members before being promulgated. We conducted a fair trial, as was recognised and accepted by the Claimant herself before she knew the outcome.[47]There is no reasonable prospect of the Judgment or Reasons being varied or revoked.[48]I will not entertain or respond to any further correspondence from the Claimant in this matter. J S Burns