Case 6029557/2025 · Employment Tribunal
LEAH GOLDIE v The Chief Constable of Warwickshire Police — 2026
- Case reference
- 6029557/2025
- Decision date
- 2 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McCluggage JUDGMENT
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
LEAH GOLDIE
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that Leah Goldie brought claims against the Chief Constable of Warwickshire Police. At the Birmingham Employment Tribunal before Employment Judge McCluggage on 14 May 2026, the claim of victimisation contrary to section 27 Equality Act 2010 was struck out under rule 38(1)(a) of the 2024 Rules.
The judgment also records that the claim of direct discrimination contrary to section 13 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed upon withdrawal. The judgment does not state the protected characteristic for that direct discrimination claim.
The claims under the Data Protection Act 2018 and the UK General Data Protection Regulation were also dismissed upon withdrawal. No remedy or monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | The judgment states that the victimisation claim contrary to section 27 Equality Act 2010 was struck out under rule 38(1)(a) of the 2024 Rules. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The judgment states that a direct discrimination claim contrary to section 13 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed upon withdrawal, but the protected characteristic is not stated in the judgment text. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | Claims under the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK General Data Protection Regulation were dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- rule 38(1)(a) of the 2024 Rules
- section 13 Equality Act 2010
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.