Case 2305751/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Pauline Cherri-Nicole Catesby Respondent (1): Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis Respondent (2): Spencer Richards Respondent (3): Du’aine Bowley v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 2305751/2023
- Decision date
- 18 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Liz Ord
- Venue
- Croydon
- Panel members
- Janet Jerram, Celia Edwards
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms Pauline Cherri-Nicole Catesby Respondent (1): Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis Respondent (2): Spencer Richards Respondent (3): Du’aine Bowley
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Croydon by CVP on 11-14 and 17 March 2025 before Employment Judge Liz Ord with Tribunal Members Janet Jerram and Celia Edwards. The claimant, Ms Pauline Cherri-Nicole Catesby, appeared in person and the respondents were represented by Michael Salter, counsel.
The written judgment records that all complaints were dismissed. Those complaints were direct disability discrimination, direct sex discrimination, direct age discrimination, direct race discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and victimisation. No claim succeeded and no remedy was awarded.
The judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note at the end of the decision. No further findings of fact or legal reasoning are set out in the written record provided.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Age discrimination | Direct age discrimination dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Other | Failure to make reasonable adjustments dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.