LEGAL ADVICE
the employer owe a duty of care, was psychiatric injury reasonably foreseeable, was there a breach of duty, and did that breach cause a recognised psychiatric illness such as PTSD or depression? In other words, the Tribunal asks whether treatment was unlawful in an employment sense. The County Court focusses on the harm suffered and whether that was caused by a breach of the duty of care owed to the claimant.
WHY POLICE CASES OFTEN SIT IN BOTH JURISDICTIONS In policing, the same factual background will often support both types of claim. Take an officer exposed to
That has real consequences. For
example, if a Tribunal claim is withdrawn, it will usually be dismissed. That dismissal judgment can then be used by a defendant in later County Court proceedings to argue that the claim is barred. This is not just theoretical. In Manda v UBS, the County Court struck out a psychiatric injury claim because the underlying issues had already been dealt with in Employment Tribunal proceedings. The claimant was not allowed a second attempt in a different forum simply by changing the legal label.
repeated traumatic incidents while carrying an excessive caseload and receiving little welfare support. If that officer develops PTSD and the warning signs were obvious, there may be a negligence claim. If, at the same time, the officer is denied support, ignored, or treated unfavourably because of their condition, there may also be a discrimination claim. Similarly, workplace bullying such as
“A rushed ET1 may focus narrowly on employment claims without considering whether a parallel personal injury claim should be pursued instead.”
Equally, the way a claim is withdrawn or
persistent criticism, isolation, or a punitive return to work process may amount to harassment or discrimination in the Tribunal, while also forming the factual basis of a psychiatric injury claim if illness results. The key point is that one set of facts can give rise to two distinct legal routes.
WHY THE INTERACTION MATTERS This is where legal concepts such as abuse of process, issue estoppel and the principle in Henderson v Henderson become relevant. In simple terms, the courts seek to prevent parties from litigating the same issues twice, or from splitting claims across forums in a way that is unfair or duplicative.
framed can matter. In some cases, it may be possible to withdraw a Tribunal claim while preserving the right to pursue a civil claim but that requires careful handling and agreement with the other side. The overall message is clear: the sequencing and handling of claims across jurisdictions requires thought. Poorly timed or poorly advised steps can close off options.
LIMITATION: PRESSURE AND OPPORTUNITY
One reason officers issue tribunal claims quickly is simple: time. Employment Tribunal limitation periods are short, typically three months from the relevant act (subject to ACAS Early Conciliation). Personal injury claims, by contrast, usually have a three-year limitation period. That difference creates understandable
pressure to “get something in” before time expires. But urgency can lead to tunnel vision. A rushed ET1 may focus narrowly on employment claims without considering whether a parallel personal injury claim should be pursued instead. Under the Employment Rights Act reforms, the time limit for bringing most Employment Tribunal claims is due to increase from 3 months less one day to 6 months less one day, with implementation scheduled for 1 October 2026. This applies to the majority of tribunal claims, including discrimination, whistleblowing detriment and many other statutory employment claims. That additional breathing space is welcome relief as it allows more time to obtain proper advice, consider jurisdiction carefully, and decide whether the case is best advanced in the
Tribunal, the County Court, or both.
THE PRACTICAL MESSAGE For police officers suffering from work related stress or psychiatric injury, the key point is not that every case should be litigated twice. It is that many cases potentially engage both jurisdictions. The short Tribunal limitation period
can create pressure to act quickly, but speed should not come at the expense of strategy. Decisions about issuing, pleading, withdrawing or settling a Tribunal claim can have unintended consequences for a later personal injury claim. The safest course is to obtain specialist
advice on the full legal landscape before issuing an ET1. Officers need to understand not only whether they have a Tribunal claim, but also whether the same facts may support a claim in the County Court and how decisions in one may impact the other.
29 | POLICE | JUNE | 2026
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46
