Stiopu v Loughran (Practice and Procedure- Application/Claims): EAT 20 Jul 2021

The employment judge erred in rejecting the claim on the basis that ‘the name of the respondent on the claim form is not the same as the name of the prospective respondent on the early conciliation certificate to which the early conciliation certificate relates’ (rule 12(1)(f) of schedule 1 to the 2013 Regulations), as she failed to consider whether the claimant had ‘made a minor error in relation to a name or address and it would not be in the interests of justice to reject the claim’ (rule 12(2A)).
Rule 12(2A) is a ‘rescue provision’, designed to prevent claims from being rejected for technical failures to use the correct name of the respondent in the early conciliation certificate and the ET1. In every case where rule 12(1)(f) may apply, the employment judge should ask him or herself the question as to whether there is a ‘minor error’ in relation to a name or address and whether it would or would not ‘be in the interests of justice to reject the claim.
In the instant case, there was material available to the employment tribunal to suggest, or indicate, that a ‘minor error’ could have been made.

Clive Sheldon QC (Deputy Judge of the High Court)
[2021] UKEAT 2020-000752
England and Wales


Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.670762