In person For the v College of Policing Limited — 2020

The Tribunal considered Mr B Middup's application for reconsideration of the earlier decision to reject his claim form. He said that false and misleading statements had been made about him in a witness statement signed for the 2016 proceedings, and argued that there was a public interest in the Tribunal being able to deal with it. He also said, in effect, that the College of Policing had failed to tell the truth to the Tribunal.

Employment Judge George refused reconsideration. The Judge held that the complaint about the College's refusal to acknowledge the alleged falsehoods did not fall within Part IVA or Part V of the Employment Rights Act 1996, so the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider it as a protected disclosure detriment complaint. The Judge also said that, on the face of the ET1, the complaint amounted to an allegation of defamation arising from statements in a witness statement, which was not a cause of action for the Employment Tribunal.

The Judge further observed that, if the claimant was in substance trying to repeat allegations made in the earlier employment dispute, that issue should have been pursued in the original proceedings. The Tribunal therefore held that the claim form did not disclose a claim within its jurisdiction and refused the application for reconsideration. No remedy was awarded.