Case 2305316/2021 · Employment Tribunal
AB v British Transport Police Authority — 2023
- Case reference
- 2305316/2021
- Decision date
- 7 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Fowell
- Panel members
- Mr Anderson, Ms Humphries
Parties
2 namedClaimant
AB
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAB, a British Transport Police constable, and PC RH were involved in a domestic incident on 14 November 2019. After a Metropolitan Police investigation, AB was charged with assault, but the criminal proceedings were later dismissed because they had not been started within the six-month time limit. BTP then brought misconduct proceedings, and on 7 June 2021 a three-person panel found three acts of misconduct proved: AB had grabbed RH’s wrists and used them to strike his own head, had pulled a duvet over her head and briefly held her under it, and had pushed her onto the bed. The panel dismissed him, and Sam Stein QC rejected his appeal on the papers. The tribunal noted that the unfair dismissal claim had been withdrawn because AB was an office holder rather than an employee.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Withdrawn at the preliminary hearing because the claimant was a police constable and therefore an office holder, not an employee. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination claim based on the different treatment of PC RH, including the misconduct findings, dismissal and appeal refusal. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments claim. The tribunal held that the alleged PCP concerned the Metropolitan Police interview process, not a PCP of the respondent. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability claim under section 15 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found the misconduct findings, dismissal and appeal refusal were based on the evidence and admissions, not on PTSD-related symptoms. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 paragraph 5 Equality Act 2010
- Kapadia v London Borough of Lambeth
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- Charlesworth v Dronsfield Engineering
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- High Quality Lifestyles Ltd v Watts
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Ayodele v CityLink Limited
- Madarrassy v Nomura
- Martin v Devonshire Solicitors
- Saka v Fitzroy Robinson Ltd
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.