Case 6013087/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Charles Hannaford v The Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall Police — 2026
- Case reference
- 6013087/2024
- Decision date
- 18 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G. King Representation
- Venue
- Exeter ET
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Charles Hannaford
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims against the Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall Police for discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and harassment relating to disability under the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal dismissed each claim as not well-founded. The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested within the stated time limit, so no further factual findings or remedy award are stated in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claim of discrimination arising from disability under s.15 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed as not well-founded. Written reasons were not included in the judgment record. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments under ss.20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed as not well-founded. Written reasons were not included in the judgment record. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Claim of harassment relating to disability under s.26 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed as not well-founded. Written reasons were not included in the judgment record. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.