The Claimant was employed by the Second Respondent. She made a complaint of sexual harassment. Her complaint involved alleged conduct of the First Respondent in his capacity as a director and owner of her employer, the Second Respondent. The ET heard evidence and found that eight incidents of sexual harassment had been established. It concluded that the incidents formed a course of conduct by the First Respondent. The Respondents appealed, contending only that the ET should not have accepted that one of the eight incidents had happened. They submitted that in light of Tui UK Limited v. Griffiths [2023] UKSC 48, the ET had erred by impermissibly accepting the evidence of the Claimant in relation to that one incident. It was also submitted that, in accepting the Claimant as credible and reliable in relation to that single incident, the ET had impermissibly taken account of the other harassing conduct which it had found to be proved.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. Tui concerned a situation where a fact-finding court had rejected part of the evidence of an expert witness whose conclusions had never been challenged in cross-examination and in circumstances where there was no competing expert opinion. Tui did not concern the situation where a fact-finder accepted uncontradicted evidence of which advance notice had been given. The ET had been entitled to accept the uncontradicted evidence of the Claimant. Also, in assessing the Claimant’s credibility and reliability, it was entirely proper for the ET to take account of the totality of the course of conduct of which it had concluded the incident formed part.