Mr D Quarm v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis — 2021

The preliminary hearing considered whether the claimant's claims should be struck out or made subject to a deposit order. The claims were clarified as detriment arising from protected disclosure and unlawful victimisation. The claimant alleged that the respondent delayed agreeing to a deed of postponement relating to a charging order over his property, and that the delay was because of his previous tribunal claims and protected disclosures.

The tribunal considered the correspondence and found that the claimant would need to show that the delay in offering the deed of postponement was because of protected acts and/or protected disclosures, and that a mere assertion was insufficient. It found that the correspondence showed the respondent was seeking to protect its position regarding the costs debt, asked questions about that issue, and agreed to the deed of postponement once questions were answered and clarification was given.

The tribunal also found nothing in the respondent's correspondence indicating that the claimant should commit mortgage fraud. It further concluded that the chronology meant the claimant had no reasonable prospect of establishing that the claims were in time or that time should be extended. The claims were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.