Case 2401657/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Sanders v The Chief Constable of Lancashire Constabulary — 2025
- Case reference
- 2401657/2022
- Decision date
- 1 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leach
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mr P Dobson, Ms J Williamson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Sanders
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a police inspector, alleged that he made protected disclosures about another officer, referred to as X, to senior officers and Professional Standards Department staff. The remaining alleged detriments were that X submitted a whistleblowing complaint or grievance in March 2021 which implicated the claimant, and that X sent all-staff emails in February 2022 making allegations about the claimant.
The Tribunal recorded that the complaint was brought under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and considered whether the claimant had made qualifying protected disclosures, whether the alleged acts were detriments, and whether any detriment was done on the ground of protected disclosure. It concluded that the claimant was not subjected to detriments on the grounds that he had made protected disclosures.
The claim was dismissed. No remedy was awarded because the liability claim did not succeed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The hearing determined liability only. The Tribunal dismissed complaints under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996 that the claimant had been subjected to detriments on the grounds that he had made protected disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 43B Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 48 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Jesudason
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.