ET Failed to Consider Whether Rejecting Claim Was in Interests of Justice

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has found that, when rejecting a woman’s claim because the name of the respondent on the claim form did not match the name of the employer on the early conciliation certificate, the Employment Tribunal (ET) erred in law in failing to consider whether it was in the interests of justice to reject the claim.

The woman had been dismissed from her job as a sales associate. She considered her dismissal to be unfair and/or discriminatory. She received an early conciliation certificate naming her employer as the prospective respondent. However, when she filed her ET1 claim form with the ET, she named an HR manager of her employer’s parent company as the respondent. As a result, the ET rejected her claim. She appealed to the EAT on the grounds that the ET had erred in doing so.

The EAT noted that the rejection letter had merely stated that the claim had been rejected because the name of the prospective respondent on the early conciliation certificate was not the same as the name of the respondent on the claim form. Before rejecting a claim for this reason, the ET must go on to consider whether that amounts to an error and, if it does, whether it would be in the interests of justice to reject the claim. It was impossible to infer from the terms of the rejection letter that any consideration had been given to those further questions, and in particular the final question as to the interests of justice.

That error of law was sufficient to dispose of the appeal and remit the matter to the ET to consider those further questions. However, the parties were agreed that the appropriate course was for the EAT to consider the matter for itself, and the EAT was satisfied that this was a case where it could do so.

The EAT found that there had been an error. The early conciliation certificate clearly named the employer as the prospective respondent. Whilst the claim form named the HR manager as the person against whom the claim was brought, there were various indications in the details of claim that the intended target of the complaint was, and always had been, the employer. In analysing the claim form and details of claim, the EAT bore in mind that the woman had been unrepresented at that stage and that excessive formality in proceedings should be avoided.

In the EAT’s judgment, it would not be in the interests of justice to reject the claim. The woman was attempting to bring the claim against a readily identifiable employer, whose correct address and contact details had been provided. She had identified a number of specific incidents and complaints with dates, locations and names of some of those allegedly involved. The error was easily remedied and the prejudice to the woman if the claim were rejected would be far greater than the prejudice to the employer if it were allowed to proceed.