High Court confirms disclosure of private information in harassment complaint was lawful and proportionate
A recent High Court ruling provides practical guidance for employers handling sensitive information in the context of workplace harassment complaints.
Background and overview
The case of Woodhead v WTTV Ltd and another involved a former managing director of a television production company who was the subject of a sexual harassment complaint made by a freelance writer. The complaint was raised under the company’s ‘Respect in the Workplace’ policy and relied, in part, on personal information the managing director had previously shared with the freelancer during what he viewed as a private friendship. The two had connected over their shared experience of recovering from addiction.
Following the complaint, the company suspended the managing director and began a disciplinary process. He later brought legal proceedings against the company, arguing that his private information had been misused in the way the complaint was handled. He also claimed that the process itself had caused him psychiatric harm.
Misuse of private information
One of the central claims was that the company had misused the managing director’s private information. He argued that the details he had shared with the freelancer about his personal life—such as his mental health and experiences in recovery—should not have been passed on to or used by the company as part of the complaint process.
The court accepted that the information was private and that the claimant had a reasonable expectation it would be kept confidential. However, it concluded that the freelancer was entitled to raise a complaint using the information, and that the company was justified in relying on it when investigating the allegations. The complaint had been made through a formal internal procedure, was clearly linked to the working relationship, and was treated seriously by the employer.
The court noted that while the situation was sensitive, using the information for the limited purpose of investigating a genuine workplace concern was lawful and proportionate.
The managing director also tried to argue that the company should be legally responsible for the freelancer’s disclosure of his private information. The court rejected this. It found that the freelancer was not an employee or someone working in a capacity akin to employment. She had raised the complaint independently, and there was no legal basis for holding the company responsible for her actions.
The court also made clear that the employer had not acted improperly in responding to the complaint. It had followed a legitimate process consistent with its workplace policy.
No vicarious liability for the freelancer’s actions
This decision provides reassurance that employers can investigate complaints raised under formal internal procedures, even where those complaints involve sensitive or personal information. Provided the process is fair and proportionate, using that information may be justified, especially where the concerns relate to working relationships and are raised in good faith.
The ruling also confirms that organisations are unlikely to be held responsible for complaints made by third parties, such as freelancers, unless there is a clear employment relationship. Nonetheless, employers should ensure their workplace respect and dignity policies apply to everyone involved in their operations, not just employees.
Employers can maintain clear policies, offer regular training, and carefully handle complaints to support a respectful working environment while effectively managing legal risk.