Case 3201332/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Matthew Berry v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis — 2024
- Case reference
- 3201332/2024
- Decision date
- 19 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Povey Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Matthew Berry
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at East London Hearing Centre by CVP on 19 November 2024 before Employment Judge S Povey. The Claimant appeared in person and the Respondent was represented by counsel.
The tribunal dismissed the complaints brought under the Working Time Regulations 1998 because they were not well-founded. The complaints for a redundancy payment, unauthorised deduction from wages, and breach of contract had been withdrawn by the Claimant and were dismissed under Rule 52.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing. The written judgment records no monetary award and no further written reasons.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | The judgment states the complaints brought under the Working Time Regulations 1998 were not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment states the complaint of failure to pay a redundancy payment was withdrawn by the Claimant and dismissed under Rule 52. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to 'unauthorised deduction from ages', which appears in context to mean wages; it was withdrawn by the Claimant and dismissed under Rule 52. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states the breach of contract complaint was withdrawn by the Claimant and dismissed under Rule 52. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 52 of the Rules contained in Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.