Case 6018637/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mark Gauld v The Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police — 2026
- Case reference
- 6018637/2024
- Decision date
- 12 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Annand Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mark Gauld
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mark Gauld, brought proceedings against The Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police. The case was heard by video at Reading Employment Tribunal on 12 February 2026 before Employment Judge Annand.
The claimant did not attend the hearing. The tribunal dismissed the claimant's claim under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The written judgment records that reasons were given orally and that written reasons would only be provided if requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment dismisses the claimant's claim under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the hearing. It gives no substantive reasons on the unfair dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment dismisses the claimant's claim under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the hearing. It gives no substantive reasons on the disability discrimination claim. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.