Claimant v Metropolitan Police Service

Outcome

Facts

The claimant, employed by the Metropolitan Police and diagnosed with PTSD, brought victimisation claims under the Equality Act 2010. He alleged five detriments between December 2021 and October 2022, including being ignored by DSU Bidewell, criticism of a promotion application, emails from Jo Hudson about inappropriate language in a report, and failure to deal with a grievance. The respondent applied to strike out all claims as substantially out of time (at least 16 months). The claimant also made two amendment applications: one from September 2024 concerning blog-related matters and promotion treatment, and one from November 2024 concerning events after the ET1 was filed.

Decision

The tribunal refused the strike out application, finding the claimant had an arguable case that the acts formed a continuing course of conduct which needed to be determined at a full hearing. The tribunal refused the first amendment application (blog-related claims) as substantially out of time with no good reason for the delay. The tribunal granted the second amendment application (November 2024 events) as it was made promptly, was in the interests of justice, and aligned with the overriding objective despite involving new individuals.

Practical note

Legal authorities cited