Case 2215916/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Kader v Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime — 2024
- Case reference
- 2215916/2023
- Decision date
- 11 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Goodman Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Kader
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Kader applied for interim relief under section 128 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in relation to her claim that she had been dismissed for making protected disclosures. Employment Judge Goodman applied the authorities on interim relief, including the high threshold described in Taplin, Dandpat, Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz and Parsons, and reminded himself that the task was only a summary assessment, not a final determination of the merits.
The claimant was a probationer police constable whose account centred on an incident she dated to May 2019, or possibly 2020, involving two male officers watching adult television, and on a March 2022 grievance about the lack of action taken on that complaint. The tribunal noted that Ms Rolfe knew about the grievance and that the claimant had a complex employment history involving probation extensions, sickness absence and misconduct allegations, but it also noted that the claimant's probation had already been affected by matters said to have occurred before the television incident.
On the material then available, the tribunal concluded that it could not be said that the claimant had a "pretty good chance" of establishing that she was dismissed because of the protected disclosure or the later grievance. The tribunal considered that poor attendance was the outstanding factor behind the decision to terminate employment, and that it was hard to see that the claimant was likely to prove that the protected disclosure reason was the sole or principal reason. Questions about whether her attendance problems were themselves caused by earlier detriments, or whether there had been victimisation for complaints, were left to be decided at a later hearing.
The application for interim relief therefore did not succeed. The judgment did not decide the underlying merits of the dismissal claim or the wider factual disputes, and it recorded that other claims and issues would be addressed separately in later case management and final hearing processes.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Interim relief application under section 128 ERA 1996 in respect of a dismissal claim said to be for protected disclosures. The tribunal did not determine the final merits of the claim; it held only that the claimant had not shown she was likely to succeed for interim relief purposes. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- section 128 ERA 1996
- section 129(1) ERA 1996
- Taplin v C. Shippam Ltd 'pretty good chance' test
- Dandpat v University of Bath
- Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz
- Parsons v Airplus International Ltd
- London City Airport v Chacko
- Parkins v Sodexho Ltd
- Abernethy v Mott, Hay and Anderson
- Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti
- section 103A ERA 1996
- section 43B ERA 1996
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.