Agency workers at Grenfell council win sexual harassment claims over crude remarks
Two finance agency workers were sexually harassed by a colleague who said they were sleeping together and made crude remarks. The tribunal awarded £4,000 and £7,000 for injury to feelings.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- Ms Shields suggested to colleagues on 29 November 2019 that the claimants were sleeping together.
- Ms Shields said to colleagues on 29 November 2019 that Ms Newton was 'sucking [Mr Austin's] cock'.
- Ms Shields told colleagues that Ms Newton was a 'cunt' in late 2019.
- The claimants only learned of these remarks in February 2020.
- The tribunal extended time for the harassment complaints as just and equitable.
- All other claims (whistleblowing, victimisation, remaining harassment) were dismissed.
Timeline
-
Sexual remarks made by Ms Shields
Ms Shields suggested to colleagues that the claimants were sleeping together and said Ms Newton was 'sucking [Mr Austin's] cock'.
-
Ms Shields called Ms Newton a 'cunt'
In late 2019, Ms Shields referred to Ms Newton as a 'cunt' in front of colleagues.
-
Claimants learn of remarks
Ms Newton was told by Ms Barard about Ms Shields' comments; she informed Mr Austin.
-
Mr Austin emails Ms Eves about harassment
Mr Austin sent an email to Ms Eves detailing the alleged harassment and obstruction.
-
Meetings with Reg Davies
Both claimants met with independent investigator Reg Davies to discuss their complaints.
-
Ms Newton's contract ends
Ms Newton's fixed-term contract was not extended; the housing legacy project was put on hold.
-
Mr Austin's contract terminated early
Mr Austin's engagement was terminated with immediate effect, paid in lieu until end of May.
-
Claim forms submitted
Both claimants presented their claims to the employment tribunal.
-
Liability judgment
Tribunal upheld two sexual harassment claims for Mr Austin and three for Ms Newton; dismissed all other claims.
-
Remedy hearing
Tribunal awarded £4,000 to Mr Austin and £7,000 to Ms Newton for injury to feelings, plus interest.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether a colleague's comments — suggesting the claimants were sleeping together and using sexually explicit language — amounted to unwanted conduct of a sexual nature under the Equality Act 2010, and whether the claimants' other claims for whistleblowing detriment and victimisation were well-founded.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea was liable for sexual harassment of both claimants. Two remarks were upheld for Mr Austin (the head of finance) and three for Ms Newton (a finance officer), including the use of a highly offensive term. The tribunal extended time for these complaints as it was just and equitable.
All other claims — including whistleblowing detriment, victimisation, and remaining harassment allegations — were dismissed. The tribunal found that the claimants had not made protected disclosures or suffered detriment for protected acts.
Compensation:
- Mr Austin: £4,000 for injury to feelings
- Ms Newton: £7,000 for injury to feelings
- Plus interest
Lessons & takeaways
- Agency workers can bring sexual harassment claims against the end-user employer if the harasser is their colleague.
- Time limits for harassment claims can be extended if it is just and equitable, especially where the claimant only learned of the conduct later.
- Crude sexual remarks and offensive language about a person's sex can amount to harassment even if not directed at them.
- Whistleblowing claims require a clear disclosure of information that the claimant reasonably believes shows a specified type of malpractice.
What this case shows in practice
Two agency workers at the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, both involved in the Grenfell Tower response, were subjected to crude sexual remarks by a colleague. The head of finance and a finance officer learned months later that their colleague had suggested they were sleeping together and used explicit language. The tribunal found this amounted to sexual harassment, even though the comments were not made directly to them.
The case highlights that agency workers can hold the end-user employer liable for harassment by its employees. The tribunal extended the time limit for bringing claims because the workers only discovered the remarks in February 2020, months after they were made in November 2019.
What the council could have done differently
The council defended the claims robustly, but the tribunal found the remarks clearly crossed the line. A more proactive approach — investigating and addressing the colleague's behaviour promptly when it came to light — might have prevented the need for tribunal proceedings. The council also contested the extension of time, but the tribunal considered it just and equitable to allow the claims to proceed.
Why the result matters
This decision confirms that offensive sexual remarks about a person, even if not said directly to them, can constitute harassment. It also shows that tribunals will take a pragmatic approach to time limits where there is a good reason for delay. For workers in similar situations, it is important to document when you become aware of harassment and seek advice promptly, but a delay may not be fatal if it is reasonable.
Similar cases
Agency worker's whistleblowing and harassment claims dismissed after short assignment
A housing officer who worked for Central Bedfordshire Council for just one month via an agency had her claims of whistleblowing detriment and harassment related to disability and transgender status dismissed by the Watford Employment Tribunal.
Driving examiner dismissed for photographing personal data: tribunal rejects discrimination and whistleblowing claims
A driving examiner with 14 years' service was dismissed for taking photos of a colleague's personal data. The tribunal found the dismissal fair and rejected all claims of discrimination and whistleblowing detriment.
Agency lawyer's race discrimination claims against council dismissed; costs ordered
An agency Contracts and Procurement Lawyer lost her race discrimination, harassment and victimisation claims against the London Borough of Waltham Forest. The tribunal also ordered her to pay costs for pursuing claims with no reasonable prospect of success.
Constructive dismissal after whistleblowing and disability harassment: a partial win for former employee
A former employee who resigned after being required to attend a disciplinary investigation meeting following protected disclosures has won claims for detriment, disability discrimination, harassment and victimisation, but her constructive unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. She was awarded £12,822.78.