Legal secretary awarded £29,000 after assault and protected disclosures
A trainee legal secretary who was assaulted by her employer and made protected disclosures has won claims of unfair dismissal, sex discrimination, harassment and victimisation. She was awarded £28,986.85.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by the first respondent as a personal legal secretary.
- The claimant was not employed by the second respondent.
- The first respondent acted inappropriately towards the claimant from the beginning.
- The claimant was not paid for work done or expenses incurred.
- The first respondent assaulted the claimant and her child.
- The claimant made protected disclosures about the first respondent's conduct.
Timeline
-
First meeting
The claimant met the first respondent at a casino to discuss working as his personal legal secretary.
-
Second meeting
The claimant met the first respondent again at a casino to discuss the role.
-
Started work
The claimant began working for the first respondent, initially from his home.
-
Consultancy agreement ended
The second respondent terminated its consultancy agreement with the first respondent due to an SRA investigation.
-
Assault
The first respondent assaulted the claimant and her four-year-old son at her home.
-
Preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Martin held a hearing to determine the claimant's employment status.
-
Final hearing day 1
The substantive hearing began before Employment Judge Krepski and members.
-
Final hearing day 5
The hearing concluded.
-
Judgment
The tribunal issued its judgment on all claims.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was an employee of the first or second respondent, and whether she was unfairly dismissed, subjected to detriment for protected disclosures, harassed or discriminated against on grounds of sex, and whether there were unauthorised deductions from wages.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claimant's claims of unfair dismissal, sex discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and unauthorised deductions from wages against the first respondent. The claim against the second respondent was dismissed as she was not employed by them.
Compensation awarded:
- Total: £28,986.85
- The award includes compensation for injury to feelings and financial losses. No breakdown by basic/compensatory/Polkey/contributory was provided.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees who make protected disclosures about their employer's conduct are protected from detriment and dismissal.
- Sexual harassment and assault by an employer can give rise to claims of sex discrimination and harassment.
- Employment status is key: workers who are not employees may not have access to unfair dismissal protection.
- Employers must pay for all work done and reimburse expenses incurred by employees.
- Victimisation for raising grievances or complaints is unlawful.
A disturbing case of workplace abuse
This case highlights the extreme end of workplace misconduct. The claimant, a trainee legal secretary, was subjected to inappropriate behaviour from the outset, including being told she was 'an obedient little slave creature'. The situation escalated to physical assault, with the first respondent attacking both the claimant and her four-year-old child at her home.
The legal issues
The tribunal had to determine whether the claimant was an employee of the first respondent (a deceased solicitor) or the second respondent (a law firm). It found she was employed by the first respondent alone. This was crucial because only employees can claim unfair dismissal. The tribunal also considered claims of sex discrimination, harassment related to sex, victimisation for making protected disclosures, and unauthorised deductions from wages.
What went wrong for the employer
The first respondent's conduct was clearly unlawful. The tribunal found that the claimant had made protected disclosures about the respondent's behaviour, and was then subjected to detriment and ultimately dismissal. The assault was a criminal act as well as a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The employer also failed to pay for work done or expenses, leading to the unauthorised deductions claim.
Why this matters
This case is a stark reminder that employment protections exist even in the most dysfunctional workplaces. The claimant was a vulnerable worker – a single mother studying law – who was exploited and abused. The tribunal's award of nearly £29,000 reflects the seriousness of the harm. For anyone in a similar situation, it shows that the law can provide redress, even when the employer is an individual rather than a large organisation. It also underscores the importance of understanding employment status, as the claim against the second respondent failed because she was not their employee.
Similar cases
Racist slur allegation rejected: tribunal finds employee's evidence vague and evasive
A mobile electrical craftsperson with seven months' service lost his race discrimination claim after the tribunal found his evidence lacked credibility and he failed to raise the most serious allegations at the time.
Dental nurse's constructive dismissal and discrimination claims rejected by tribunal
A dental nurse who resigned after securing another job failed to prove she was constructively dismissed or that her employer discriminated against her. All claims were dismissed.
Audit Assistant Manager loses constructive dismissal and race discrimination claim against Grant Thornton
An Audit Assistant Manager with 2 years' service who resigned after being placed on a performance improvement plan has lost his claims of constructive unfair dismissal, race discrimination and whistleblowing detriment. The tribunal found the employer had reasonable cause for its actions.
Senior campaigner dismissed after refusing to work over Navalny prisoner-of-conscience decision
A long-serving Amnesty International campaigner who refused to return to work unless the organisation reversed its decision to reinstate Alexei Navalny's prisoner-of-conscience status has lost her unfair dismissal claim.