Case 3300531/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Dethling v The Police Federation of England and Wales — 2025
- Case reference
- 3300531/2024
- Decision date
- 22 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Emery REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Dethling
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing, the tribunal considered the claimant's application to amend her claim to include victimisation and the respondent's application to strike out all claims or seek deposits. The tribunal said that, but for prospects, it would have allowed the victimisation amendment on a just and equitable extension of time.
The tribunal struck out the victimisation complaint because it found no reasonable prospect that the claimant could show the respondent withheld appeal legal advice because she had done a protected act, rather than because of its policy of withholding legal advice obtained for its own purposes. The s.15 disability discrimination complaint was struck out because the tribunal found the claimant's dismissal was a separate event and not itself a consequence or effect of disability for the purposes of the pleaded causal link.
The tribunal also struck out the complaint about aiding a contravention of the Equality Act, applying similar reasoning to the victimisation claim. The breach of contract complaint was struck out because the tribunal found it had no jurisdiction over a contract claim against this non-employer respondent.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of discrimination arising from disability under s.15 Equality Act 2010 was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation complaint was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Complaint that the respondent aided a contravention of the Equality Act by instructions to solicitors to withhold legal advice was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract complaint was struck out because the tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- Rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules
- Rule 38 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
- Selkent Bus Co Ltd t/a Stagecoach Selkent v Moore [1996] IRLR 661
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- s.56A Equality Act 2010
- s.111A Equality Act 2010
- iForce Ltd v Wood UKEAT/0167/18
- Hall v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2015] IRLR 893
- Risby v London Borough of Waltham Forest UKEAT/0318/15
- Pnaiser v NHS England [2016] IRLR 170
- Employment Tribunals Act 1996 s.3
- Oni v UNISON Trade Union UKEAT/0092/17
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.