The Chief Constable of Cleveland Police

Case Summary

The appellant appealed the ET's refusal to extend time for a victimisation claim under the Equality Act 2010. The appeal challenged the ET's finding that witness evidence was less reliable due to delay and the ET's consideration of reputational damage to Acting Inspector Dack as a relevant factor in the time extension decision. The EAT upheld the ET's decision, finding that the assessment of evidence reliability was a permissible impressionistic evaluation, that forensic prejudice was adequately explained, and that reputational risk to a witness in the policing context was not automatically irrelevant.

The EAT found the ET had not erred in law. The ET's assessment of deterioration in evidence quality was a permissible impressionistic evaluation applying Gestmin principles and the reasoning sufficiently explained why delay created forensic disadvantage. Reputational risk to a non-party witness is not automatically irrelevant, and in the policing context impaired reputation may carry implications for the respondent organisation as part of overall forensic prejudice. The ET's conclusion on limitation was within its broad discretion under s123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010 with adequate reasons.

• •Whether employment tribunal erred in refusing to grant just and equitable extension of time for victimisation claim under Equality Act 2010 s123(1)(b)
• •Whether ET erred in finding witness evidence less reliable due to delay without evidential foundation
• •Whether ET wrongly inferred forensic prejudice
• •Whether ET took into account irrelevant consideration of reputational damage to witness (Acting Inspector Dack)
• •Application of Gestmin principles to witness evidence assessment
• •Relevance of reputational risk to non-party witness in policing context

Judgment approved by the court for handing down Rashad v The Chief Constable of Cleveland Police © EAT 2025 Page 1 [2026] EAT 1 Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EAT 1 Case No: EA-2024-000879-NK EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL Rolls Building Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL Date: 2 January 2026 Before: HIS HONOUR JUDGE BEARD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between: MR MOHAMMED RASHAD Appellant - and – THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF CLEVELAND POLICE Respondent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ms H Hogben (instructed by Haighs Laws) for the Appellant Mr S Healy (instructed by Evolve Legal Services) for the Respondent Hearing date: 2 December 2025 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT Judgment approved by the court for handing down Rashad v The Chief Constable of Cleveland Police © EAT 2025 Page 2 [2026] EAT 1 SUMMARY JURISDICTIONAL/ TIME POINTS The claimant appealed against the ET’s refusal to grant a just and equitable extension of time for a victimisation claim (complaint 9) under the Equality Act 2010. He argued first that the ET erred in finding witness evidence “less reliable” due to delay without an evidential foundation to do so, and wrongly inferred forensic prejudice; and secondly that the ET took into account an irrelevant consideration, namely potential reputational damage to a witness. (1) The ET had not erred in law. Its assessment of deterioration in evidence quality was a permissible, impressionisti…