An Employment Tribunal found that a man who subjected a woman to persistent ridicule and abuse, including deliberately bumping into her and staring at her, was guilty of sexual harassment.

The tribunal concluded that this was unwanted conduct which affected her dignity at work. The absence of a sexual motive did not preclude a sexual harassment finding as, noting that a woman was more vulnerable in these circumstances than a man, the victim's gender was therefore identified as the critical factor in her treatment.

The sex discrimination test depends on whether or not there is less favourable treatment is on grounds of gender. In this case, the tribunal also took into account a pattern of behaviour in relation to other female employees.

The case demonstrates that there are remedies available to deal with bullying in the workplace.

The employers were criticised for failing to attach sufficient seriousness to the allegations, or to treat them as sexual harassment. The employers were also criticised for failing to follow the principles of the European Commission Code of Practice on Measures to Combat Sexual Harassment.

The employer had failed to do enough to protect the employee by trying to stop the offending behaviour and was held liable for two-thirds of the compensation awarded, with the remaining third to be paid by the man.

The case should serve as a general warning to employers. Unless they adopt and operate proper equal opportunities procedures and treat allegations of sexual harassment seriously, proceedings can and will follow.

The outcome is an important reminder that a finding of sexual harassment does not require a sexual motive. Bullying, intimidation, abuse, ridicule or unwanted physical contact directed at those of one gender, may all amount to unlawful sex discrimination, if similar treatment would not have been meted out to those of the other gender. The sex of the person responsible for the unlawful behaviour is not relevant.

However, the anomaly remains that an employer who treats all employees equally badly may escape being held to account.

In another significant case the NAS/UWT won £100,000 for teacher Christine Browell who had been subjected to a lengthy period of bullying by her head teacher. The employer, Northumberland County Council, paid up but refused to admit liability on the grounds that Ms Browell had failed to use the grievance procedure at her workplace.

After the settlement, Browell said: "I do not feel the compensation goes anywhere near compensating me for the loss of my chosen career nor the hardship and stress caused to my family as a result of my illness."