Miss Gemma Fox v The Police Federation of England and Wales — 2026

At a preliminary hearing, Employment Judge Freshwater permitted Gemma Fox’s complaints of whistleblowing detriment, direct sex discrimination, harassment related to sex and victimisation against the Police Federation of England and Wales to proceed. The hearing determined jurisdiction, time limits and amendments, rather than whether the alleged disclosures, detriments or discrimination were proved. The respondent denied the allegations and accepted that it was a trade organisation for the purposes of section 57 of the Equality Act 2010.

Fox remained a City of London police officer while working full-time on the Federation’s National Board. She became Deputy National Secretary in July 2022. Applying Gilham and the broad-brush approach discussed in MacLennan, the tribunal found her position analogous to that of a limb (b) worker for whistleblowing protection. Her senior role carried substantial responsibilities and made her likely to become aware of wrongdoing. The tribunal found a public interest in disclosures concerning the Federation and no alternative disclosure routes or protections on the evidence before it. Her continuing police salary and whistleblowing rights against her home force did not protect her against detriment by the Federation.

The parties accepted that Article 10 was engaged and that Fox’s elected role amounted to a status. The tribunal found no objective justification for excluding her from whistleblowing protection. There was no evidence that Parliament had considered excluding elected office-holders such as Fox. The government response relied on by the respondent gave no articulated justification for excluding trade union officials or representatives. The tribunal therefore held that it had jurisdiction to hear her whistleblowing complaints.

Early conciliation began on 2 October 2024, and the claim was received on 6 November 2024. The first whistleblowing detriment complaint was late, but the tribunal accepted that Fox’s declining mental health, prescribed medication and sickness absence made timely presentation not reasonably practicable. It found that she acted promptly once the obstacles were removed and presented the complaint within a further reasonable period. The parties agreed that the second alleged detriment was in time.

For the Equality Act complaints, the tribunal rejected the argument that the particulars of victimisation, direct discrimination and harassment could be combined to establish a continuing course of conduct. It nevertheless granted a just and equitable extension, accepting that Fox’s mental health affected her ability to formulate her claims. It also took account of her attempts to resolve matters internally and the fact that she obtained legal advice only after submitting the claim. Permission was granted to amend the allegations concerning mentoring, criticism over childcare, victimisation and the second whistleblowing detriment. The tribunal found that these amendments concerned the underlying dispute and would not require substantially different enquiries or additional witnesses.