Case 6016186/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Jonathan Waring v The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police AT A HEARING — 2026
- Case reference
- 6016186/2024
- Decision date
- 30 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Jonathan Waring
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a detective constable, was compulsorily retired on ill-health grounds after medical evidence recorded complex chronic PTSD and likely permanent unfitness for ordinary police duties. The tribunal found that the decision to approve medical retirement rather than retention was unfavourable treatment arising in consequence of the claimant's accepted disability.
The issue was justification. The tribunal accepted the respondent's aims of maintaining an efficient and effective police force and protecting the claimant's health, safety and welfare, and applied a proportionality balancing exercise. It found that continued work in the police environment, whether as a serving officer or civilian, would be detrimental to the claimant's wellbeing and recovery.
The tribunal concluded that termination of employment was necessary to accomplish the aim of protecting the claimant and that the balance was in the respondent's favour. The section 15 disability discrimination claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The claim was for discrimination arising from disability under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 in respect of dismissal by compulsory ill-health retirement. The tribunal accepted disability and unfavourable treatment but found the respondent had made out the defence of justification. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- Akerman-Livingstone v Aster Communities Ltd [2015] UKSC 15
- Williams v Trustees of Swansea University Pension and Assurance Scheme [2018] UKSC 65
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.