Case 3204752/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Vyas v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis FINAL HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 3204752/2022
- Decision date
- 7 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mr S Woodhouse, Mr J Webb
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Vyas
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at East London Hearing Centre on 14 to 17 April 2025 before Employment Judge S Shore, with Mr S Woodhouse and Mr J Webb as members. It considered Mr R Vyas's claims against the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis for harassment related to race, direct race discrimination, and victimisation arising from a series of management decisions by DS Lester and DI Knight, a DPS investigation, restricted duties, and a written improvement notice.
The tribunal rejected each allegation. It found that the claims based on refusal of permission to attend the World Mental Health Seminar, words of advice about IAMS logs, refusal to allow exercise recommended by Occupational Health, a request for a hospital letter, refusal to let the claimant go home early, DI Knight's response to the complaint, the DPS investigation, delay in that investigation, placement on restricted duties, and the written improvement notice were not made out as harassment related to race, direct race discrimination, or victimisation. In each of the three claim groups, the duplicate allegation about words of advice for not updating the IAMS logs was dismissed upon withdrawal as a duplicate of the earlier allegation in that group.
Because all claims were dismissed or withdrawn, the tribunal recorded that there was no requirement to consider remedy.
Claims and outcomes
33 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Duplicate of paragraph 2.2; dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 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.