Mr U Saeed v The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police — 2021

This was a reserved judgment on preliminary issues arising from a second claim that included victimisation and disability discrimination. The tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that counsel for the respondent said, in substance, that she would seek adverse credibility findings against the claimant, that some matters could not be a mistake, and that an adverse finding could affect his position in the evidential chain and his operational role. The tribunal did not find that counsel said she was instructed to do so.

The tribunal held that the conversation formed part of ongoing without prejudice settlement discussions. It rejected the claimant's argument that those discussions had already ended, and found that the comments were part of discussing litigation risk in an attempt to settle. It also held that the comments were neither an unambiguous impropriety nor a threat, so the without prejudice privilege applied and the conversation could not be relied on in support of the victimisation claim.

The tribunal agreed that judicial proceedings immunity did not apply because the conversation occurred outside the tribunal room. It also accepted that words spoken by counsel could in principle amount to victimisation by a respondent in some circumstances, but that issue did not arise for determination because the conversation was privileged. The victimisation claim was therefore dismissed, while the remaining claims were consolidated to proceed together.