Claimant v The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police
Outcome
Individual claims
Tribunal found no jurisdiction to consider protected disclosure detriment claims as they were presented out of time and it was reasonably practicable to present them in time. Claimant had physical ability to present claim, had access to Police Federation advice, and could have discovered ET route via internet search. Ignorance of time limits was not reasonable in circumstances.
Struck out for lack of jurisdiction (time limit). However, tribunal found that even if they had jurisdiction, all three specific detriment allegations would have failed on merits: (1) DCI Curran's report was not untrue; (2) Dr Rogerson did not rely on report before making diagnosis as he received it after issuing report; (3) Supt Smith did not misrepresent position in letter to Dr Huda.
Facts
Claimant, a police officer since 2004, alleged serious misconduct including sexual offences by fellow officers and corruption within GMP. On 17 May 2019, she read a 31+ page handwritten document to ACC Anderson alleging criminal activity, sexual misconduct, and surveillance. Instead of investigating, GMP referred her to occupational health. Two consultant psychiatrists diagnosed her with delusional disorder regarding surveillance beliefs, based on assurance from GMP that she had not been subject to authorised covert surveillance. Claimant remained off work from December 2018, attempted multiple avenues of redress including IOPC and her MP, and eventually brought ET claim in July 2023.
Decision
Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to consider whistleblowing detriment claims as they were presented nearly 3 years out of time and it was reasonably practicable to present them in time. Claimant had physical ability, access to Police Federation advice, and could have discovered ET route. Even if jurisdiction existed, all three specific detriment allegations would have failed on merits as facts alleged were not proven or did not amount to detriment.
Practical note
Ignorance of employment tribunal procedures and time limits will rarely render it not reasonably practicable to bring a claim in time where the claimant had access to professional advice (e.g. union or Police Federation) and physical ability to investigate their options.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2407430/2023
- Decision date
- 3 September 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 8
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Police Officer
- Service
- 21 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No