Case 1802932/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Wilson, counsel For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 1802932/2022
- Decision date
- 26 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A James
- Panel members
- Ms B R Hodgkinson, Mr A Senior
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr L Wilson, counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Sheffield, chaired by Employment Judge A James with Ms B R Hodgkinson and Mr A Senior, heard the case between 22 and 26 May 2023. The judgment records that Mr R Hackney brought claims against the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, sex discrimination, and age discrimination.
All four claims were dismissed. The tribunal stated that the unfair dismissal claim under section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996 was not upheld, the wrongful dismissal claim under Article 3 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 was not upheld, and the sex discrimination and age discrimination claims under section 13 Equality Act 2010 were not upheld. No monetary award or other remedy is recorded in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim under section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996 was not upheld. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Claim under Article 3 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 was not upheld. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Claim under section 13 Equality Act 2010 was not upheld. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Age discrimination | Claim under section 13 Equality Act 2010 was not upheld. | Dismissed | Age | — |
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.