Case 2415616/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Savage v The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police Force PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2022
- Case reference
- 2415616/2020
- Decision date
- 15 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Savage
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Batten sitting alone on 24 February 2022. The claimant, Mrs M Savage, brought complaints including protected disclosure detriment and sex discrimination against the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police Force. The tribunal dealt only with limitation issues relating to events or acts said to have occurred on or before 7 April 2020.
For the protected disclosure detriment complaint, the tribunal found that the parts relating to events or acts on or before 7 April 2020 had not been presented in time under section 48(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It was satisfied that it had been reasonably practicable to present those complaints within the 3-month period, and those parts of the complaint were dismissed.
For the sex discrimination complaint, the tribunal found that the parts relating to events or acts on or before 7 April 2020 were out of time under section 123(1) of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal did not consider it just and equitable to extend time, so those parts of the sex discrimination complaint were also dismissed.
The judgment records that matters in the claim form presented on 7 October 2020 which relate to events or acts on or before 7 April 2020 could not be relied upon as complaints, although they could be used as background information. The judgment does not record any remedy award, and it does not determine the merits of any later events beyond the time-limit ruling.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Dismissed only insofar as the protected disclosure detriment complaint related to events or acts on or before 7 April 2020. The tribunal found it had not been presented in accordance with section 48(3) ERA 1996 because it was reasonably practicable to present those complaints within the 3-month period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed only insofar as the sex discrimination complaint related to events or acts on or before 7 April 2020. The tribunal found the complaint was outside the time limit in section 123(1) Equality Act 2010 and declined to extend time on a just and equitable basis. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 48(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- section 123(1) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable
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.