Mr B Field v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis — 2025

This was an open preliminary hearing dealing with the respondent's strike-out application and the claimant's two amendment applications. The respondent argued that the claimant's claims had no reasonable prospect of success because they were all out of time. The tribunal held that the claimant had an arguable case that the alleged acts formed part of a continuing course of conduct, and that it was not appropriate at this stage to sever the allegations or determine that argument without a substantive hearing.

The tribunal gave limited weight to the claimant's submission that mental ill-health, including a PTSD diagnosis, had played a role in his actions and delays, noting that this had not been tested at the hearing. Overall, the tribunal concluded that the claims did not have no reasonable prospect of success, so the strike-out application was refused.

The claimant's 1 September 2024 amendment application, concerning treatment in relation to promotion, was refused after the tribunal balanced the prejudice to each side and placed significant weight on the lateness and different nature of the proposed claims. The 14 November 2024 amendment application was granted: the tribunal allowed further s.27 Equality Act 2010 victimisation allegations based on post-ET1 events in November 2024, finding that they were made promptly and that granting the amendment accorded with the overriding objective.