Case 6016669/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Bastin v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis — 2025
- Case reference
- 6016669/2024
- Decision date
- 20 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davidson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Bastin
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was dismissed for capability after a probation process. The tribunal found the dismissal decision was based on performance information from a fixed period that had ended more than a year before the decision was taken, and that the respondent did not take account of subsequent improvement or further performance concerns when making the dismissal decision.
The tribunal found the original dismissal was unfair and outside the band of reasonable responses. It considered that, because of the delay in holding the dismissal hearing, the claimant had accrued unfair dismissal rights and the respondent should have assessed his position as at the date of dismissal, gathered recent evidence, allowed him to answer any current concerns, and considered suitable alternative employment.
The appeal did not remedy the defects. The appeal panel accepted that the whole employment period should have been considered, but then relied on more recent matters without properly examining them or giving the claimant a fair opportunity to respond. The tribunal found the unfairness was substantive rather than merely procedural.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim well-founded. Remedy was reserved for a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.98(2)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Byrne v BOV Ltd EAT/231/90
- band of reasonable responses
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.