Case 2303161/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Woolgar v The Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police — 2025
- Case reference
- 2303161/2022
- Decision date
- 27 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Khalil Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Woolgar
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claim. It had previously written to the claimant on 16 October 2025 and gave him an opportunity to make representations, or to request a hearing, on why the claims should not be struck out because it was no longer possible to have a fair hearing of the claim, in particular because of the claimant’s non-attendance at the previous hearing and the non-provision of further particulars of the claim.
The claimant did not make representations in writing, or did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, the tribunal considered it proportionate to strike out the claim.
The judgment does not record any merits findings on the underlying claims, any remedy assessment, or any award. It was approved by Regional Employment Judge Khalil Date on 27 October 2025.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment does not restate the underlying pleaded claim type in the reasons; this classification follows the gov.uk listing category for the case. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not restate the underlying pleaded claim type in the reasons; this classification follows the gov.uk listing category for the case. | Struck out | — | — |
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.