Case 2404366/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr I Hill v The Chief Constable of Lancashire Constabulary and 2 others — 2023

Case reference: 2404366/2023
Decision date: 12 December 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Batten
Venue: Manchester

Indexed: 20 May 2026

Parties

4 named

Claimant

Mr I Hill

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At a preliminary hearing held in Manchester on 5 and 6 December 2023, Employment Judge Batten sitting alone decided a vicarious liability issue first. The Tribunal found that the former fourth and fifth respondents were at all material times acting as Police Federation representatives, with the result that the first respondent could not be vicariously liable for their conduct.

The complaint of detriment for making a protected disclosure was dismissed on limitation grounds. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was reasonably practicable to present that complaint before the end of the three-month period required by the Employment Rights Act 1996, but it had not been presented in time.

The age discrimination complaint was also dismissed on limitation grounds. The Tribunal held that it had not been presented within the time limit in section 123(1) of the Equality Act 2010 and that it was not just and equitable to extend time.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Whistleblowing	Dismissed because it was not presented to the Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was reasonably practicable to present the complaint before the end of the three-month period. The Tribunal also found that the former fourth and fifth respondents were at all material times acting as Police Federation representatives, so the first respondent could not be vicariously liable.	Dismissed	—	—
Age discrimination	Dismissed because it was not presented within the time limit in section 123(1) of the Equality Act 2010 and the Tribunal did not consider it just and equitable to extend time.	Dismissed	Age	—

Legal tests applied

4 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.

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.