Cases6006924/2024

Claimant v Metropolitan Police Service

20 June 2025Before Employment Judge Mr J S BurnsLondon Centralremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalwithdrawn

The unfair dismissal claim was withdrawn by the claimant in March 2025. Police constables are not employees and have no right to claim ordinary unfair dismissal in the Employment Tribunal. The tribunal declined to reconsider the withdrawal.

Direct Discrimination(race)struck out

The race discrimination claim was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant failed to plead facts that would make out a prima facie case. The comparators cited had materially different circumstances, and the generalized assertions of institutional racism were not justiciable and did not show the claimant was dismissed because of his race.

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)struck out

The disability discrimination claim was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. The claim did not disclose a valid cause of action and had no relevant particulars. Simply ticking boxes on the ET1 without any details or reference to discrimination was wholly insufficient.

Facts

The claimant, a police constable of 22 years, had his recruitment vetting withdrawn in March 2024 due to the cumulative effect of approximately 15 allegations of misconduct over an extended period. He was subsequently dismissed in October 2024 as it was impractical for him to work as a police constable without vetting. He brought claims for unfair dismissal and race and disability discrimination, but provided no particulars of discrimination in his ET1 forms beyond ticking boxes. His internal appeal made no reference to race or disability discrimination. Later he attempted to amend his claims, citing institutional racism and lack of support for his dyslexia and dyspraxia.

Decision

The tribunal refused all amendment applications as they were substantially out of time, lacked proper particulars, and would introduce new claims far wider than the original vetting decision. The discrimination claims were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success because they disclosed no valid cause of action and the claimant failed to plead facts that would make out a prima facie case. The unfair dismissal claim remained withdrawn as police constables have no right to claim ordinary unfair dismissal.

Practical note

Simply ticking discrimination boxes on an ET1 without any supporting particulars is wholly insufficient, and claims alleging institutional discrimination without specific facts linking the protected characteristic to the decision under challenge will be struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.

Legal authorities cited

Selkent Bus Company Ltd v Moore [1996] ICR 836Vaughan v Modality Partnership [2021] ICR 535Ahir v British Airways [2017] EWCA Civ 1392Efobi v Royal Mail Group Ltd [2021] UKSC 33Chandock v Tirkey [2015] ICR 527Madarassy v Nomura International Plc [2007] ICR 867

Statutes

EqA 2010 s.136(2)

Case details

Case number
6006924/2024
Decision date
20 June 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
emergency services
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Police Constable
Service
22 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No