Case 2223071/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Novlett Williams v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis HELD AT: London Central (via CVP) — 2025
- Case reference
- 2223071/2024
- Decision date
- 16 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mellor
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Novlett Williams
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing was a public preliminary hearing. The claimant accepted she could not bring an ordinary unfair dismissal complaint because she was an office holder, and that complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal. The tribunal was not asked to decide the limitation issue for the discrimination complaints, which remained for the final hearing.
The remaining disputed issue was the respondent's application to strike out two pleaded allegations of direct race or sex discrimination, or victimisation, concerning pursuit of alleged notification errors and pressure to accept a caution. The respondent argued these matters fell outside the employment field and therefore outside the tribunal's jurisdiction.
The tribunal refused the strike-out application. It found the allegations were borderline and more than merely fanciful because the claimant alleged the acts were connected with a wider attempt to end her employment because of race and/or sex. The tribunal concluded the issue could only properly be determined after hearing evidence.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The ordinary unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal because the claimant accepted she could not bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim as an office holder. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The respondent's application to strike out two direct race discrimination allegations at paragraphs 45(a) and 45(e) was refused. The merits and jurisdiction were left to be determined after evidence. | Other | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The respondent's application to strike out two direct sex discrimination allegations at paragraphs 45(a) and 45(e) was refused. The merits and jurisdiction were left to be determined after evidence. | Other | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | The pleaded paragraph 45 allegations were described as direct race and/or sex discrimination or victimisation under section 27 Equality Act 2010. The strike-out application was refused; no final liability decision was made. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Rule 38 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- section 120 Equality Act 2010
- Anyanwu and anor v South Bank Student Union and anor
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
- Martin
- Tiplady
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.