Practice and Procedure – Application/Claim
An Early Conciliation (EC) form was submitted by the Claimant who provided an address at which she had attended a meeting with a director of the Respondent company. That address was not the registered office of the Respondent nor one at which the Respondent itself carried out its business, although the director worked there. The Respondent was duly contacted by ACAS at that address, and it responded. An EC certificate was then provided by ACAS.
A second EC form was submitted by solicitors for the Claimant who were unaware of the earlier EC process. Proceedings were issued by them on a date which would have been in time had the second EC certificate been the one governing the proceedings, but out of time if the first certificate had been validly issued.
The EAT held that the first certificate was indeed valid, and thus the claim was brought out of time. It did so on two bases. First, there is no requirement under Rule 12 of the ET Rules for ET staff to refer a claim form to an Employment Judge if the address of the prospective respondent on a claim form is different from that on the EC certificate.
Alternatively, and having regard to the purposive and non-technical approach to the EC process which other decisions of the EAT have set out, the provision by a Claimant of an address at which business in relation to a Respondent is carried out is compliant with the EC regulations.
Citations:
[2019] UKEAT 0117 – 19 – 2409
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 16 October 2022; Ref: scu.646848