Mrs M Raheem v Secretary of State for Justice: 1309278/2019
[1]The claimant’s claims are withdrawn in their entirety.[2]Since the last preliminary hearing the claimant has been dismissed and a further claim intimated. Rather than comply with previous orders the claimant sought to start afresh with the new claim by withdrawing this one, submitting that the defects in the previous claim could not be rectified.[3]It was unclear why that had not been raised specifically before today.[4]The claimant was, effectively seeking to reserve the right to repeat the current claims in those new proceedings. The reasons offered werea. That the initial claim was lodged late because she was a litigant in person.b. She was initially awaiting the formal written outcome of her grievance.c. She has now been dismissed.d. She says she is now awaiting both the appeal of her grievance and her dismissal before finalising her claims.e. It would be in the interests of clarity and proportionality to approve the proposal. Case Number: 1309278/2019 2f. She is now represented[5]As a result, under rule 52, I reluctantly agreed not to dismiss the claims and reserve the claimant’s rights to raise them again.[6]Nothing in this outcome prevents either party from relying on matters raised in these proceedings in any future claim save that, for time limit purposes, the claimant cannot rely on the dates of claims, or of her intimation of additional claims that have not, as yet, been subject to an application to amend.[7]It should also be understood that any new claims will not necessarily extend time limits for earlier allegations and the issue of new proceedings should not be used as means of subverting the purposes of EJ Cookson’s previous orders or the tribunal process generally.[8]In the absence of any further applications in relation to this case within 28 days the file will be closed. Employment Judge Broughton 10 August 2020