Case 6031573/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Goddard v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis — 2026
- Case reference
- 6031573/2025
- Decision date
- 19 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Goddard
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out Mr L Goddard's claim under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The judgment did not identify the underlying causes of action and made no substantive determination of an unfair dismissal or disability discrimination complaint.
The Tribunal had warned Mr Goddard on 14 March 2026 that it was considering striking out the claim and ordered him to explain by 28 March 2026 why it was not an abuse of process given that it duplicated case 6025417/2025. He replied on 1 April 2026, referring to IT difficulties, but did not explain why the claim was not an abuse of process. Employment Judge Robinson found that the allegations could properly be considered in the separate case, that striking out this claim would cause no unfairness to Mr Goddard, and that strike-out accorded with the overriding objective in Rule 3. No remedy or monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying causes of action; it records only that the claim as a whole was struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- overriding objective in Rule 3
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.