Mr Cook, of counsel For v Respondent — 2023

The claimant, a former valuer chairman of the Residential Property Tribunal Service, retired on 21 April 2008 after 27 years' service. In October 2011 she presented a complaint under the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, alleging that the respondent had failed to pay her a pension because of her part-time status. The claim was stayed in November 2011 pending the lead litigation in O'Brien. After her legal expenses insurance was withdrawn, she asked to withdraw the claim in October 2015, and a judgment dismissing it following withdrawal was sent on 16 March 2016.

On reconsideration, the tribunal extended time for the late application even though it was almost four years out of time. It accepted that the delay was explained by the claimant's financial position, her lack of legal knowledge, and the fact that she had no further interest in the litigation after withdrawing the claim. The tribunal found that the respondent was not significantly prejudiced, that a fair trial would still be possible, and that the interests of justice required the 2016 dismissal judgment to be revoked.

The tribunal then held that the withdrawn 2011 claim could not be revived. Relying on rule 51 and Khan v Heywood & Middleton Primary Care Trust, it held that a withdrawn claim comes to an end, so the only vehicle for any further complaint was the claimant's fresh claim presented in October 2022. It rejected the respondent's abuse of process argument and extended time on a just and equitable basis for that fresh claim, taking account of the history of the earlier proceedings, the claimant's circumstances, and the limited prejudice to the respondent. No substantive pension entitlement or monetary award was determined in this judgment.