Sexual Harassment at the Work Christmas Party
The EAT decision in AB v GH Ltd [2026] EAT 155 involved claims by a female employee that after a workplace Christmas party, she had been sexually harassed in a hotel by a male colleague. Alcohol had been consumed and both employees were drunk. After the party the male colleague helped the employee to her hotel room with her bags. Matters then progressed from a platonic hug. The female employee brought claims against her employer to the Employment Tribunal (“ET”) alleging sexual harassment, victimization and constructive unfair dismissal. The ET dismissed her claims on a number of grounds including that the conduct had not been “unwanted.” This was upheld on appeal, with the EAT finding the ET had not erred in its approach to consent and capacity to consent.
The relevant GB legislation considered in the judgement was s26 of the Equality Act 2010. In NI the legislation would be s6A(1)of the Sex discrimination (NI) Order 1976 :
… a person subjects a woman to harassment if—
(a) he engages in unwanted conduct that is related to her sex or that of another person and has the purpose or effect—
(i)of violating her dignity, or
(ii)of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for her,
(b)he engages in any form of unwanted verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that has the purpose or effect—
(i) of violating her dignity, or
(ii)of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for her, or
The key points in the judgement were:
- The statutory term "unwanted" should be applied as written and cautioned against substituting alternative expressions such as "unwelcome" or "uninvited"
- Consent remains relevant when assessing whether conduct was "unwanted" for the purposes of harassment.
- The existence of consent will not necessarily be determinative in every case, particularly where other factors such as a power imbalance are present.
- Intoxication does not automatically remove a person's capacity to consent. Whether a person had capacity is a fact-sensitive question to be determined on the evidence.
The decision is a useful reminder that harassment claims remain highly fact-specific and that issues of consent, capacity and workplace dynamics require careful consideration when assessing liability. It also should remind employers to ensure that employees are informed about acceptable and unacceptable conduct at workplace functions and that the provision of alcohol should be monitored.
