Case 2405353/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Mather v The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police — 2023
- Case reference
- 2405353/2022
- Decision date
- 19 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne Representatives
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Mather
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, the tribunal addressed whether Mr Mather should remain a party to two multiple claims referred to as the Olbinson multiple and the Ridley-Laing multiple. Mr Mather was removed as a party to the Olbinson multiple by consent under rule 34 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal also removed Mr Mather as a party to the Ridley-Laing multiple after a disputed rule 34 decision. It found that he had been wrongly included as a party because he had not made any claim in Miss Ridley-Laing's claim form within the meaning of rule 9. The tribunal further stated that it had no power to allow him to amend that claim form and, if it had such power, permission would have been refused.
The judgment records no remedy award and no substantive determination of any discrimination or other merits claim. Oral reasons were given at the hearing, with written reasons available only if requested within 14 days of the judgment being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment is a preliminary hearing judgment removing Mr Mather as a party to the Olbinson multiple by consent and to the Ridley-Laing multiple after a disputed rule 34 decision. It does not determine any substantive discrimination or other merits claim. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 34 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 9
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.