Case 2501983/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Dias First v The Chief Constable of Cleveland Police Second Respondent: Police & Crime Commissioner for Cleveland — 2021
- Case reference
- 2501983/2020
- Decision date
- 16 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle upon Tyne Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Dias First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a strike-out and deposit-order hearing concerning a former police officer's claims arising out of historical complaints, the 2017 settlement agreement, the Operation Talon and Operation Forbes investigations, and the respondent's July 2020 customer contact arrangements. No oral evidence was heard. At the hearing on 15 March 2021 the claimant was ordered to provide further particulars, and he later withdrew the race discrimination complaint and some of the victimisation / protected interest disclosure allegations.
The tribunal applied Rule 37 and Rule 39 of the Employment Tribunals Rules, together with the time-limit provisions in section 48(3) Employment Rights Act 1996 and section 123 Equality Act 2010. It accepted that many of the allegations were outside the primary limitation periods on their face, but declined to strike out the remaining claims because the claimant argued they formed part of a continuing act ending with the customer contact strategy, and because the tribunal did not want to resolve disputed factual issues without hearing evidence. It also noted the prior settlement agreement, but did not treat it as a complete answer at this stage because the investigations were still ongoing when the parties settled.
On the merits of the strike-out application, the tribunal considered the occupational-health / reasonable-adjustment complaint to have little or no prospect of success because the claimant had left employment in 2013 and the respondent's occupational health and attendance-management policies were directed to employees, not former employees. It also found several of the remaining victimisation and protected disclosure allegations to have little prospect of success, and ordered deposit payments of £650 per allegation. The total deposit order was £11,050. The judgment's numbering is internally inconsistent on paragraph 10K, so the exact final procedural treatment of that allegation should be read with caution.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The claimant withdrew this claim at the 15 March 2021 hearing. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Withdrawn by the claimant in October 2021; the judgment's summary section also records it as dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Some allegations were withdrawn (the reasons section refers to paragraphs 10A, 10C, 10H and 10M), while the remainder were not finally disposed of and were instead treated as having little prospect and made subject to deposit orders. The judgment is internally inconsistent about paragraph 10K, so its final procedural status is not entirely clear from the text. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The protected interest disclosure allegations were partly withdrawn and partly left to proceed subject to deposit orders; the tribunal did not finally determine the merits. The text is internally inconsistent about paragraph 10K. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal said the reasonable-adjustment complaint had little or no prospect because the claimant had left the force years earlier and the respondent would not reasonably have known of any disability. The judgment also includes the disability complaint in the deposit-order reasoning, so the final procedural effect is not perfectly consistent on the face of the text. | Other | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,050
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
15 references- Rule 37 strike out
- Rule 39 deposit order
- section 48(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- continuing act
- Ezsias
- Anyanwu
- Mechkarov v Citybank
- Cox v Adecco Group UK Limited
- Boyle v SCA Packaging Limited
- Van Rensburg
- Wright v Nipponkoi Insurance Europe Limited
- Arthur v London East Railways
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- Hendricks
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.