Case 2206280/2023 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Respondent — 2025

Case reference: 2206280/2023
Decision date: 28 March 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Webster Appearances
Venue: London Central

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At the hearing in London Central on 13 to 19 March 2025, Employment Judge Webster heard the Claimant’s claims against the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. The tribunal held that the Claimant’s claims for direct race discrimination and harassment related to race were not upheld.

The tribunal also held that the Claimant’s claim for constructive unfair dismissal was not upheld, and that the claim for denial of the right to be accompanied was not upheld. The record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing, and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the record of decision.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Race discrimination	The tribunal recorded that the Claimant’s direct race discrimination claim was not upheld.	Dismissed	Race	—
Harassment	The tribunal recorded that the Claimant’s harassment related to race claim was not upheld.	Dismissed	Race	—
Constructive dismissal	The tribunal recorded that the Claimant’s constructive unfair dismissal claim was not upheld.	Dismissed	—	—
Other	The tribunal recorded that the Claimant’s denial of the right to be accompanied claim was not upheld.	Dismissed	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.