Employment Cases Update

Patel v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis UKEAT/0301/19/BA

Date published: 28/05/2020

Appeal against the ET’s refusal to order disclosure of documents in an ongoing claim by the Claimant against the Respondent. Appeal allowed.

The Claimant was bringing proceedings against the Respondent alleging race and/or religious discrimination in relation to a denial of transfer to another borough. He was informed by one chief inspector that he would not be considered for transfer because of his association with a Hindu temple; a year later, he was told by another chief inspector that, since he had resigned from his post at the temple, he could be considered for transfer; and he sought an order for disclosure of documents relating to the later meeting. At a preliminary hearing, the ET refused the Claimant's application for disclosure, stating that it was unlikely that there would be evidence of sufficient relevance to make it necessary to disclose the documents sought, and that the later meeting took place when there had been a significant change of circumstances. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT held that the ET had erred in concluding that there had been a significant change of circumstances between the earlier and later meetings, since the Claimant's resignation from his post at the temple had been known at the time of the earlier decision; on that basis, the ET's refusal to order disclosure was based on a factual error and could not stand. Accordingly, the matter would be remitted to a fresh ET to give directions as to the scope of evidence and disclosure in relation to the later meeting.

Read the full text of the judgment on BAILII or download the file by clicking the link below.