Case 6016100/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Eugene Robinson v Chief Constable of Essex Police — 2026
- Case reference
- 6016100/2024
- Decision date
- 18 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gardiner Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Eugene Robinson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal gave judgment on jurisdiction after a hearing at East London Hearing Centre by CVP on 18 February 2026. It decided that it did not have jurisdiction to determine specified allegations of direct sex discrimination, harassment, direct race discrimination and harassment.
The stated reason was that those allegations did not concern alleged detriments suffered in the employment field. The allegations were accordingly dismissed. Written reasons were not provided in the judgment record, with oral reasons having been given at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to decide the direct sex discrimination allegation identified at allegation 3.2.1.5 and 6 because it did not concern alleged detriments suffered in the employment field. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to decide the harassment allegation identified at allegation 3.2.1.5 and 6 because it did not concern alleged detriments suffered in the employment field. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to decide the direct race discrimination allegations identified at allegations 3.2.2.10(a), 3.2.2.10(b) and 6 because they did not concern alleged detriments suffered in the employment field. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to decide the harassment allegations identified at allegations 3.2.2.10(a), 3.2.2.10(b) and 6 because they did not concern alleged detriments suffered in the employment field. | Dismissed | Race | — |
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.