Case 2407182/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Tommy Fung v The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police — 2024
- Case reference
- 2407182/2021
- Decision date
- 9 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspinall Representation
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Tommy Fung
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, the tribunal considered whether the claimant was precluded from bringing victimisation complaints against the respondent because of a COT3 agreement dated 21 November 2022. The claimant said the alleged detriments were done because he had brought earlier proceedings, case number 2407182/2021, about discrimination in promotion processes at Greater Manchester Police.
The tribunal found that alleged detriments P1, P2 and P3 formed part of the particular complaint being conciliated at the time of the COT3 and fell within the matters settled by that agreement. Those complaints were therefore struck out.
The tribunal found that alleged detriments P4 and P5 had not arisen at the time of the COT3, did not arise from the facts then in issue, and were new and separate matters. The claimant was not precluded from bringing those complaints, which were to proceed to a case management hearing and final hearing. The tribunal also accepted the respondent's submission that the claimant's solicitors had actual and ostensible authority to enter the COT3, binding the claimant to it insofar as it precluded P1 to P3.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | The tribunal struck out complaints about alleged victimisation detriments P1, P2 and P3 because they were precluded by the COT3 settlement agreement. | Struck out | — | — |
| Victimisation | Complaints about alleged victimisation detriments P4 and P5 were not struck out and were allowed to proceed to case management and final hearing; no final liability decision was made on those complaints. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA v Ali
- Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital Trust v Howard
- Arvunescu v Quick Release (Automotive) Ltd
- Clifford v IBM UK Limited
- section 144 Equality Act 2010
- section 147 Equality Act 2010
- particular complaint
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.