Case 3308660/2024 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr R Ford (2) Mr L Woodward v The Chief Constable of Suffolk Constabulary — 2026
- Case reference
- 3308660/2024
- Decision date
- 9 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Warren Representation
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Mr R Ford (2) Mr L Woodward
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge M Warren, sitting alone, gave judgment in linked claims by two male police officers (Mr R Ford / 3308660/2024 and Mr L Woodward / 3308661/2024) against the Chief Constable of Suffolk Constabulary. Both complaints of direct sex discrimination were well-founded and succeeded.
The tribunal recommended that the respondent apologise to each of the claimants for transferring them from their assigned team for the purpose of replacing them with female police officers. Each claimant was awarded £11,483.28, comprising £10,000 injury to feelings and £1,483.28 interest. This response covers Mr Ford's case (3308660/2024).
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination upheld for Mr R Ford (case 3308660/2024). Award: £10,000 injury to feelings + £1,483.28 interest. Tribunal recommended that the respondent apologise to each claimant for transferring them from their assigned team to be replaced with female police officers. Linked second claim 3308661/2024 (Mr L Woodward) had identical award. | Upheld | Sex | £11,483 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,483
- across all upheld claims
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.