Ms E Upton-Webb v Ministry of Defence — 2026

The Tribunal extended time to the beginning of 2022 on a just and equitable basis. It accepted that Ms Upton-Webb had believed she needed to await the outcome of her service complaint and had commenced proceedings once she became aware of the time limit. It found that she would otherwise lose the ability to rely on events surrounding her notification of pregnancy, whereas the Ministry of Defence had known of those allegations through her February 2022 service complaint and ET1.

The indirect sex discrimination claim concerned the Royal Navy fitness-testing policy in BRd51(2), including its post-maternity provisions. The Tribunal found that the relevant post-maternity provision applied exclusively to women and therefore did not satisfy s.19(2)(a) Equality Act 2010, which required application, or potential application, to people who did not share the protected characteristic. Pregnancy and maternity were not relevant protected characteristics for the purposes of s.19. The indirect sex discrimination claim was dismissed as not well conceived.

On the January 2022 reversion from Sub-Lieutenant to Petty Officer and cessation of the SEMC course, the Tribunal found facts capable of shifting the burden of proof, including the timing and the reference to delay caused by maternity leave. It nevertheless accepted that Ms Upton-Webb was reverted because she had not completed INT(O) at BRNC and was not then a commissioned officer, and that the SEMC was restricted to commissioned officers. It also found that the requirement to undertake sea training within the applicable timeframe applied to candidates irrespective of sex. This allegation of direct discrimination was dismissed.

The Tribunal also dismissed the allegation concerning the requirement for medical clearance before attempting the maximal 2.4 kilometre run during the two years after childbirth. The proposed male comparators were materially different because Ms Upton-Webb was post-partum and was medically non-deployable from 29 March 2023 until 9 January 2024, exempt from the RNFT and unfit for strenuous exertion. Mr Vincent's permanent medical restriction also differed from her temporary condition. Applying Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan, the Tribunal found that the post-maternity restriction was objectively a benefit intended to protect servicewomen from injury rather than less favourable treatment.

Regarding admission to BRNC, the Tribunal found material differences between Ms Upton-Webb and Mr Vincent: his medical condition permanently prevented completion of the UY course, while her restrictions were temporary, and the Ministry of Defence had made enquiries and understood that she did not qualify for the SUY route. The Tribunal did not determine whether she was in fact qualified for that route. It found that courses from September 2023 to May 2024 conflicted with her partner's RAF officer training and the associated childcare arrangements, while medical advice concerning maximal exercise within 12 months of childbirth and her medical downgrade precluded attendance in May 2023. She was allocated to and attended the September 2024 course.