Case 6001499/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Tyrell Inniss v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis — 2026
- Case reference
- 6001499/2025
- Decision date
- 13 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Aspinall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Tyrell Inniss
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal refused the Claimant's application to amend his claim to add allegations concerning events in May 2025. Claims relating to the conduct of the Police Appeals Tribunal proceedings were struck out for want of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal dismissed the direct race discrimination, direct sex discrimination, and victimisation claims arising from the Claimant's dismissal on 9 July 2024 for want of jurisdiction. The written judgment states that those claims were presented outside the applicable time limit and that it was not just and equitable to extend time; the claim was dismissed entirely.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claims insofar as they related to the conduct of the Police Appeals Tribunal proceedings were struck out for want of jurisdiction; the judgment does not specify the underlying claim type in the written record. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination arising from dismissal on 9 July 2024 was dismissed for want of jurisdiction because it was presented outside the applicable time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination arising from dismissal on 9 July 2024 was dismissed for want of jurisdiction because it was presented outside the applicable time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation arising from dismissal on 9 July 2024 was dismissed for want of jurisdiction because it was presented outside the applicable time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.