Case 2204159/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Cross v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis — 2024
- Case reference
- 2204159/2023
- Decision date
- 5 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Snelson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E Cross
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a police officer, brought numerous discrimination complaints on 30 March 2023. The respondent disputed the complaints. At a preliminary hearing on 11 December 2023, Employment Judge Emery made a case management order defining the issues, giving directions, and listing a final hearing for 17-27 September 2024.
The tribunal found that the claimant failed to engage with the respondent's representatives after 8 January 2024 and did not comply with the disclosure order requiring documents by 26 April 2024. The respondent's representatives raised the disclosure requirement in several communications in May 2024, but the claimant did not respond.
After the tribunal warned the claimant on 25 June 2024 that strike-out was being considered and that a failure to respond was likely to lead to strike-out, she did not respond. Employment Judge Snelson was satisfied that strike-out under rules 37(1)(c) and (d) was proper, just and proportionate, referring to the claimant's clear and flagrant breach of the order, lack of explanation, and failure to pursue the claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment states that all claims, described as numerous complaints of discrimination, were struck out. It does not set out the individual discrimination issues; age is identified from the gov.uk listing category supplied with the case context. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that all claims, described as numerous complaints of discrimination, were struck out. It does not set out the individual discrimination issues; sex is identified from the gov.uk listing category supplied with the case context. | Struck out | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 rule 37(1)(c)
- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 rule 37(1)(d)
- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 rule 10(2)(l)
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.