Mr L Mather v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police: 2405353/2022 and 2403445/2022
JUDGMENT
[1]In this judgment,a. “Miss Ridley-Laing’s claim form” means the claim form in which Miss Ridley-Laing’s name appears in Box 1 and which was given claim number 2403444/2022 and others;b. the “Ridley-Laing multiple” means claim 2403444/2022 together with such other claims (if any) as were made by other claimants named in Miss Ridley-Laing’s claim form;c. “Miss Olbinson’s claim form” means the claim form in which Miss Olbinson’s name appears in Box 1 and which was given claim number 2405350/2022 and others; andd. the “Olbinson multiple” means claim 2405350/2022 together with such other claims (if any) as were made by other claimants named in Miss Olbinson’s claim form.[2]Mr Mather is removed as a party to the Olbinson multiple. This was a decision by consent under rule 34 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.[3]Mr Mather is also removed as a party to the Ridley-Laing multiple. This was a disputed decision also made under rule 34, on the ground that:a. Mr Mather was wrongly included as a party to the Ridley-Laing multiple, in that he did not make any claim in Miss Ridley-Laing’s claim form within the meaning of rule 9.b. The tribunal has no power to allow Mr Mather to amend Miss RidleyLaing’s claim form, because he did not make any claim in it. 1 of 2 Case Number: 2405353/2022 2403445/2022c. Had the tribunal power to allow Mr Mather to amend Miss Ridley-Laing’s claim form, permission would have been refused.