D Warburton v The Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police

D Warburton v The Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police

The Employment Tribunal's decision on victimisation was set aside because it misstated the law, failed to apply the correct legal test for detriment and causation, and did not provide sufficient reasoning. The costs order under Rule 76(1)(b) was set aside because the rule does not apply to applications for a stay, and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to make such an order.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Mr D Warburton; Respondent/appellant: Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Employment Tribunal and Cross Appeal on Costs
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; victimisation claim remitted for rehearing before a different Employment Tribunal; costs appeal allowed and costs order set aside.
Legal Topics
Victimisation, Protected Disclosures, Whistleblowing, Causation in Discrimination, Employment Tribunal Procedure, Costs Orders
Employment Law Equality and Discrimination Victimisation Protected Disclosures Whistleblowing Causation in Discrimination Employment Tribunal Procedure Costs Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr D Warburton

Appellant/claimant

Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Employment Tribunal and Cross Appeal on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal applied the correct legal test for victimisation under section 27 Equality Act 2010
  2. 2 Whether the claimant suffered a detriment
  3. 3 Whether the protected act caused the alleged detriment

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal's decision on victimisation was set aside because it misstated the law, failed to apply the correct legal test for detriment and causation, and did not provide sufficient reasoning. The costs order under Rule 76(1)(b) was set aside because the rule does not apply to applications for a stay, and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to make such an order.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; victimisation claim remitted for rehearing before a different Employment Tribunal; costs appeal allowed and costs order set aside.

Orders

  • The victimisation claim is remitted for rehearing before a different Employment Tribunal.
  • The costs order made under Rule 76(1)(b) is set aside.