Case 2301078/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. A Selous v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis — 2025
- Case reference
- 2301078/2023
- Decision date
- 11 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cawthray
- Panel members
- Ms S Dengate, Mr J Turley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. A Selous
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal issued a remedy judgment following oral reasons at the hearing. It made a recommendation that, within four weeks, the Respondent put the Claimant back on a shift pattern to include two-person scene work when available.
The Respondent was ordered to pay compensation for past financial losses of £22,630.83 and interest on that sum of £2,018.17. The judgment records that these sums were agreed by the parties, calculated on gross figures, with appropriate deductions to be made by the Respondent as required.
The Tribunal also awarded £778.56 for future financial losses, £12,000 for injury to feelings, and £2,138.30 interest on the injury to feelings award, calculated under the Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) Regulations 1996.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The remedy judgment records compensation and recommendations following a discrimination case. It does not set out the liability findings or written reasons; classification as disability discrimination follows the listed jurisdiction/category and the discrimination remedy structure in the judgment. | Upheld | Disability | £39,566 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £39,566
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £23,409
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) Regulations 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.