Hendricks v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: CA 27 Nov 2002

The appellant appealed a finding of the Employment Appeal Tribunal against her. She had complained of sex and race discrimination. She alleged that the Tribunal had concentrated on the issues of policy within the respondent police force.
Held: The true issues were how in fact the complainant had been treated, and the Tribunal had concentrated too much on what were the policies of the Respondent. Attempts should be made to concentrate on the most recent and most serious allegations to limit the scope of the hearings.

Judges:

Judge, Mummery, May LJJ

Citations:

Times 06-Dec-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1686, [2003] IRLR 96, [2003] 1 All ER 654, [2002] All ER (D) 407, [2003] ICR 530

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromThe Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Hendricks EAT 5-Nov-2001
EAT Jurisdiction – (no sub-topic). . .
CitedOwusu v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority EAT 1-Mar-1995
The employee complained of his employer’s repeated failure to regrade him, and alleged discrimination. The employer said his claim was out of time.
Held: Mummery J made the distinction between single acts of discrimination, and continuing . .

Cited by:

CitedChief Constable of Kent County Constabulary v Baskerville CA 3-Sep-2003
The claimant sought damages for sex discrimination by fellow police officers in an action against the Chief Constable. The Chief Constable said he was liable for the unlawful acts of fellow officers.
Held: Anything done by an employee was done . .
CitedJames v Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd CA 23-Oct-2008
The claimant renewed his application for leave to appeal.
Held: The claimant’s first ground was unarguable. His original application failed to comply with the requirements of the 2002 Act. On the second ground, the tribunal had disagreed with . .
CitedArthur v London Eastern Railway Ltd (T/A One Stansted Express) CA 25-Oct-2006
The claimant brought a claim for detriment suffered after he had made a protected disclosure. The employer replied that he was out of the three month time limit. He had been off sick after being assaulted, and said that his employers had treated him . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Police, Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178476