Case 1800964/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms T Afzal v The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police — 2019
- Case reference
- 1800964/2019
- Decision date
- 25 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms T Afzal
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal and breach of contract complaints. It held that the claimant, as a police officer, was excluded by statute from the right to claim unfair dismissal and was not in the position of an employee in relation to the Chief Constable.
The claimant had been given an opportunity by order dated 25 June 2019 to show cause why those complaints should not be struck out, and she provided representations on 4 July 2019. The tribunal found that those representations did not address the fundamental legal difficulties and instead asked the tribunal to disapply the law, which it could not do.
The judgment expressly noted that the claimant's discrimination complaints, including a complaint about dispensing with her services, remained for a later hearing on time limits and were not determined by this strike out judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant was a police officer excluded by statute from the right to claim unfair dismissal and was not in the position of an employee vis-a-vis the respondent. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Struck out on the same basis identified by the tribunal: the claimant was not in the position of an employee vis-a-vis the respondent. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37
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.