In the case of Ms A P v Greycoat Real Estate LLP the tribunal at London Central has rendered a verdict deeming a senior executive’s claims for discrimination, potentially totalling £5 million, as having “no reasonable prospect of success.” They asserted that it was “unreasonable” for her to have pursued them.
Ms AP, who believed she had been unfairly treated at Greycoat Real Estate LLP, alleged that she had been sidelined in her career after refusing to commit to returning to work following maternity leave, being made a “passive member” of the partnership.
However, the tribunal found no evidence supporting her claims of sex and pregnancy discrimination, stating that the respondent had attempted to accommodate her desire to work part-time.
Furthermore, the tribunal ruled that the respondent could seek reimbursement of costs up to £225,000 in a subsequent hearing.
Ms AP became a partner at Greycoat Real Estate LLP in April 2018. In March 2020, she informed the CEO of her pregnancy. A board meeting in September discussed Ms AP’s future at the company. Following her maternity leave, discussions about her return to work ensued, with Ms AP expressing a desire for flexibility and part-time work. Despite offers made by the company, Ms AP remained dissatisfied. Ultimately, she was designated a “passive member” of the partnership in a new LLP agreement.
Employment Judge Hodgson said: “It was the claimant’s case, at all material times, that it was the respondent’s actions which caused the effective removal of her partnership rights and that constituted her loss of career which led to the alleged financial loss.”
Her total claim could have potentially reached £5m, with Hodgson adding: “It is clear that a substantial sum was sought as a result of the claimant being ‘divested’ of her career.”
They continued: “Any limitation of the claimant’s right to receive profits occurred because she did not agree to return to work. That was her choice.
“The claimant was not removed from the partnership. Her rights were paused because an impasse had been reached, but she remained part of the partnership, and ultimately there was a potential to proceed.
“The respondent’s action was not inappropriate or unexplained. It simply reflected the reality of the position as caused by the claimant.”
They went on to say that the partnership took a “generous approach” in pausing the claimant’s position, and “took appropriate action to preserve the legal position because of the claimant’s intransigence and unwillingness to engage”.
Ultimately, the tribunal concluded: “The claim which was summarised as divesting the claimant of her career was hopeless, and the claimant ought to have known that at all material times.
“The claim had no reasonable prospect of success, and it was unreasonable conduct to bring it.”
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
