In Bayode v The Chief Constable of Derbyshire EAT/0499/07, the EAT held that, where alleged less favourable treatment consisted of accurate written records made by colleagues in their personal notebooks about aspects of a black police officer's behaviour that were of concern to them, the employment tribunal was entitled to find on the facts that the officer had no justified sense of grievance about the making of the entries and therefore had not suffered any detriment.
In Heath v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, the Court of Appeal holds that proceedings before a Police Disciplinary Board are judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings to which the rule of immunity from suit attaches.
In Kuddus v Chief Constable of Leicestershire Constabulary [2001] UKHL 29, the House of Lords allowed an appeal against a strike out of a claim for exemplary damages for the tort of misfeasance. It held that exemplary damages were not restricted to causes of action for which exemplary damages had been awarded prior to 1964. The House of Lords did not expressly decide whether exemplary damages should be available in discrimination cases.
In Ashton v Chief Constable of West Mercia Constabulary [2001] ICR 67 EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld an employment tribunal's decision that a male to female transsexual dismissed due to poor performance had not been discriminated against on grounds of sex, although the poor performance was linked to the side effects of medical treatment for gender reassignment. It also upheld a finding that the employee was not disabled within the meaning in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
In Malcolm v Metropolitan Police Commissioners 1995 5 CLR 368 HC, the High Court held that the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, regulation 5 creates an absolute statutory duty and proof that a defect in equipment had caused an accident would fix the duty holder with civil liability.
In Waters v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (14 February 1995) EOR64B, the EAT rules that an employer could not be not liable for victimising an employee who alleged that she was sexually harassed by a work colleague, where the alleged harassment was not committed in the course of employment.