Mr D Quarm v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Auerbach |
| Neutral Citation | UKEAT/0200/18 LA |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Practice,Procedure,Victimisation Discrimination,Procedure - Striking-out/dismissal,Not landmark |
| Date | 22 May 2019 |
| Published date | 23 May 2019 |
Copyright 2019
Appeal No. UKEAT/0200/18/LA
UKEAT/0205/18/LA
UKEAT/0271/18/LA
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
FLEETBANK HOUSE, 2-6 SALISBURY SQUARE, LONDON EC4Y 8AE
At the Tribunal
On 16 April 2019
Judgment handed down on 22 May 2019
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE AUERBACH
(SITTING ALONE)
MR D QUARM APPELLANT
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OF THE METROPOLIS RESPONDENT
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
UKEAT/0200/18/LA
UKEAT/0205/18/LA
UKEAT/0271/18/LA
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant MR TRISTAN JONES
(of counsel)
Instructed by:
Advocate
The National Pro Bono Centre
48 Chancery Lane
London
WC2A 1JF.
For the Respondent MR NIRAN DE SILVA
(of counsel)
Instructed by:
Directorate of Legal Services
Metropolitan Polices Services
Holborn Police Station
8th Floor
10 Lamb’s Conduit Street
London
WC1N 3NR
UKEAT/0200/18/LA
UKEAT/0205/18/LA
UKEAT/0271/18/LA
SUMMARY
VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Striking-out/dismissal
These were appeals from three decisions.
In 2015 the Appellant made a complaint to the IPCC alleging misconduct on the part of fellow
officers. This was referred to t he Respondent’s Directorate of Professional Sta ndards (DPS)
who decided to take no action in relation to it. He presented an ET claim that this was an act of
direct race discrimination, victimisation (for having made previous ET claims under the
Equality Act) and whistleblowing detriment. He ticked the box on the claim form requesting
that a copy be sent to the regulator. The claim form was then sent to the IPCC, which in turn
sent it to the Respondent’s DPS. They decided to take no action upon it pending the outcome
of that ET claim. The Appellant then presented a fresh ET claim in relation to that decision.
The ET held that it did not amount to an act of victimisation because, applying Derbyshire v St
Helens MBC [2007] ICR 841 (HL) there was no detriment. That decision was upheld. The ET
erred in finding that there was in any event no detriment because the outcome would have been
no different. Deer v University of Oxford [2015] ICR 1213 applied. But the ET’s decision
was not dependent on that finding, which was ma de in the alternati ve. The failure to take
further action after the first ET claim had concluded was said to amount to a further act of
victimisation. That claim also failed. That decision was also upheld. The ET had found that
the complaint had genuinely slipped off the radar of the case handler. The inaction was not
because of the protected act. The first appeal was therefore dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial