Case 3200394/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Speller v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis WRITTEN — 2025
- Case reference
- 3200394/2024
- Decision date
- 16 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Massarella
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Speller
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal considered the Respondent's application to strike out claims of direct disability discrimination and disability harassment, and for deposit orders in relation to disability harassment. Claims arising from the Claimant's arrest on 8 August 2023, related bail conditions and work restrictions were struck out because the Tribunal found they arose outside the employment relationship and were outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
The Tribunal also struck out discrimination complaints arising from alleged 2014 events. It found there was no reasonable prospect of establishing that those matters formed part of conduct extending over a period ending in 2023, or that it would be just and equitable to extend time.
The Tribunal refused to strike out the remaining 2023 workplace-related disability discrimination complaints and refused deposit orders for the harassment complaints. It held that, taking the Claimant's case at its reasonable highest and without hearing evidence, there was sufficient prospect of arguments about continuing conduct, time extension and the alleged link to disability being determined at a later hearing.
Claims and outcomes
5 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaints arising from the Claimant's arrest on 8 August 2023, related bail conditions and work restrictions were struck out under Rule 38 because they had no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment complaints arising from the arrest-related matters were struck out under Rule 38 because they had no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | Complaints arising from alleged acts in 2014, including events connected with exclusion from a nightclub because the Claimant was gay, were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of overcoming limitation. | Struck out | Sexual orientation | — |
| Disability discrimination | The Respondent's application to strike out the direct disability discrimination complaints about the alleged failure to investigate and the 26 September 2023 email was refused; those claims were not finally determined. | Other | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The Respondent's strike-out and deposit-order applications in relation to disability harassment complaints about the 6 July 2023 and 2 November 2023 incidents were refused; those claims were not finally determined. |
Legal tests applied
13 references- Rule 38(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 40 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- rule 3 overriding objective
- Hasan v Tesco Stores Ltd EAT 0098/16
- Balls v Downham Market High School and College 2011 IRLR 217
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board v Ferguson 2013 ICR 1108
- Anyanwu and anor v South Bank Student Union and anor 2001 ICR 391
- Caterham School Ltd v Rose EAT 0149/19
- Kwele-Siakam v Co-Operative Group Ltd EAT 0039/17
- Kolev v Middlesex University 2023 EAT 173
- section 39(2) Equality Act 2010
- section 40(1)(a) Equality Act 2010
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
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.