Case 2403103/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Miss L Mason v The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police — 2024

Case reference: 2403103/2023
Decision date: 11 July 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Dunlop

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Miss L Mason

Respondent

The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claimant's complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages. The disputed payments related to her former role as a police officer, which she held as an office-holder rather than as an employee or worker, and the Tribunal found no statutory authority to hear that claim brought by an office-holder.

The remainder of the judgment dealt with the claimant's application to amend her claim and the respondent's arguments that some matters should not proceed because of the linked multiple claim. The Tribunal applied amendment and abuse of process principles, permitting some matters in the annexed list of issues to proceed and not permitting others where amendment was refused or where allowing them would be an abuse of process.

No compensation was awarded and no final merits findings were made on the claims allowed to proceed, including the automatic unfair dismissal, disability-related harassment, disability discrimination, reasonable adjustments, and victimisation issues.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unlawful deduction from wages	The Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the unauthorised deductions from wages complaint under s.13(1) Employment Rights Act 1996 because the disputed payments related to the claimant's former role as a police officer, held as an office-holder rather than as an employee or worker.	Dismissed	—	—
Unfair dismissal	The judgment concerned amendment and abuse of process issues for an automatic unfair dismissal complaint under s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996. The Tribunal permitted the disputed protected disclosures and the disputed matters relied on for constructive dismissal to proceed; there was no merits determination.	Other	—	—
Harassment	The judgment addressed whether disability-related harassment allegations could proceed as part of the amended list of issues. Some matters were permitted to proceed procedurally; there was no merits determination.	Other	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	The judgment addressed direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and reasonable adjustments issues in the amended list of issues. The annex identifies matters to proceed and matters not permitted to proceed; there was no merits determination.	Other	Disability	—
Victimisation	The judgment addressed victimisation issues in the amended list of issues and whether particular matters could proceed. There was no merits determination.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

5 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.