Case 3201210/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mr A Patterson v Chief Constable of Essex Police — 2021

Case reference: 3201210/2020
Decision date: 15 February 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Russell Representation
Venue: East London Hearing Centre

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr A Patterson

Respondent

Chief Constable of Essex Police

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mr A Patterson applied unsuccessfully for a Special Constable role with Essex Police. He said his case rested on disability and religion or belief discrimination, and on a separate claim under section 63 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. At the hearing on 30 November 2020 before Employment Judge Russell, the Claimant withdrew the disability discrimination claim, which was recorded as dismissed upon withdrawal.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	The Claimant withdrew the disability discrimination claim at the hearing; the judgment records it as dismissed upon withdrawal.	Withdrawn	Disability	—
Religion or belief discrimination	The claim was pleaded as indirect discrimination because of religion or belief and was struck out for having no reasonable prospect of success.	Struck out	Religion or belief	—
Other	Claim under section 63 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 concerning training was struck out because the statutory right applies to qualifying employees and not to applicants for employment.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

3 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.