Case 1400716/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Ministry of Defence — 2025
- Case reference
- 1400716/2024
- Decision date
- 25 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail Appearances
- Venue
- Exeter in public
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims against the Ministry of Defence arising from his capacity as a member of the Armed Forces. The tribunal stated that, as a matter of statute law, he could not claim unfair dismissal, dismissal or detriment in connection with a protected disclosure, or disability discrimination.
The tribunal also considered the pleaded sex discrimination point relating to Naval diving masks not fitting the claimant's facial structure. It found that the issue applied to men and women alike and therefore there was no prima facie sex discrimination.
Employment Judge Smail struck out the claimant's claims on the basis that they had no reasonable prospects of success.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal stated that, as a member of the Armed Forces, the claimant may not claim unfair dismissal as a matter of statute law, and struck out the claims as having no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal referred to a claim for dismissal or detriment in connection with a protected disclosure and stated that, as a member of the Armed Forces, the claimant may not bring it as a matter of statute law. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal stated that, as a member of the Armed Forces, the claimant may not claim disability discrimination as a matter of statute law. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal found there was no prima facie sex discrimination because the problem with Naval diving masks not fitting the claimant's facial structure applied to men and women alike. | Struck out | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- no reasonable prospects of success
- prima facie sex discrimination
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.