Claimant v British Transport Police

The tribunal found that the claimant failed to establish that the alleged provisions, criteria or practices (PCPs) existed or that they placed him at a substantial disadvantage. The tribunal applied Ishola principles and found the one-off decisions did not constitute PCPs with an element of repetition. The claimant provided no medical evidence to support his contentions.

The tribunal found that the unfavourable treatment (the decision to move to CID) did not arise in consequence of the claimant's disabilities. The decision was based on DCS White's investigation into the claimant's conduct following allegations of dishonesty. The claimant failed to establish that the matters relied upon arose from his disabilities, and key factual allegations were not made out.

The tribunal found that the alleged PCPs either did not exist or were not Ishola-compliant (i.e. did not indicate how similar cases would generally be treated). The tribunal found no evidence of substantial disadvantage, noting the claimant was assured his work pattern would not change for 28 days and that he refused to engage with occupational health processes. The claimant provided no medical evidence to support his contentions.

The constructive dismissal claim related to discrimination was struck out as out of time. The claimant applied to extend time on just and equitable grounds but failed to provide adequate explanation or reasons. The tribunal noted inadequate explanation beyond lack of legal advice and declined to extend time under s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010.