Towards the end of the year Mr Millican, who was married with children, began an affair with the PA.
Mrs Prior ‘willingly engaged’ in conversations
Fully “aware” of their relationship, Mrs Prior “willingly engaged” in conversations with both of them about it, often giving advice, the panel heard.
On New Year’s Day in 2019 while on a skiing trip, Mrs Prior sent Mr Millican a message, describing a family breakup as part of the “rich tapestry of life”.
Mrs Prior, after meeting CH, urged Mr Millican to “follow his heart” and added that she was “happy to help, no matter what”.
However, later that month Mr Millican broke things off with CH, the tribunal heard.
The tribunal heard how Mrs Prior then, following a request from her boss, facilitated CH’s willing exit from the company.
When CH told Mr Millican she was pregnant and planned to have a termination, he told Mrs Prior of his “scepticism” and that he thought it was a “fairytale”.
Hired private detective
He hired a private detective, who reported CH as spending a “only a short period” at the clinic.
Mrs Prior agreed with CH to feign pregnancy to find out how long a termination would take.
In October 2019 Mrs Prior and Mr Millican met in a pub where they had a “v v positive” conversation in which she was told she could have “full maternity leave on full pay for as long as I want” if she got pregnant.
In March 2020 Mr Prior announced she was pregnant and gave birth in October.
However, Mrs Prior refused to come back to work after maternity leave following an argument about her returning role.
In February 2022 the company attempted to negotiate a payoff for her to leave, yet this was rejected and the lawsuit was launched .
She made claims of sex discrimination and harassment relating to her treatment by Mr Millican during his affair as well as other claims of pregnancy discrimination, victimisation and harassment.
The tribunal dismissed her claims, however.
Willing participant in relationship
The allegations regarding Mr Millican’s affair had not been brought in time, the panel concluded, and she had been a willing participant in the relationship.
Employment Judge Graeme Hodgson said Mrs Prior’s decision not to return to work “was her choice”.
“When we consider the nature and gravity, we observe that the allegations on which the claim for significant financial loss were based were hopeless.
“The fact that some claims may have had, at least in theory, some limited prospect of success does little or nothing to reduce the gravity of [Mrs Prior]’s actions in seeking damages of millions of pounds on a claim that she knew, or ought to have known, was hopeless.
“We have formed the view that it is appropriate to cap the maximum costs to those which are reasonably payable by the claimant. We place that cap at £225,000.”