The claimant was dismissed in December 2019 and in March 2020 she went through the early conciliation process receiving a certificate naming the respondent as ‘Leicester City Council’. However, when she presented her claim using the ET1 form she referred to the respondent as ‘Leicestershire City Council’. It should be noted that the details of the claim did correctly refer to the respondent.

The claim was rejected under Schedule 1, Paragraph 12(1)(f) of the 2013 Regulations on the basis that the prospective respondent on the certificate as not the same as that within the ET1 form. The claimant applied for reconsideration of the decision to reject the claim. She argued that it would not be interests of justice to reject the claim and that it was a minor error that was made by her solicitors.  The Tribunal stated that the original decision was correct but that the defect could be rectified and treated as being received on 11th May (when it was brought to the attention of the Tribunal).   The difficulty with this is that it meant that it fell outside of the primary time limit for presenting the claim. The claimant applied to have this reconsidered and it was then held by the Tribunal that the date of acceptance of the ET1 form should be treated as the 1st May (and within the time limit) rather than 11th May which was outside of the time limit.  The Tribunal noted that there was no prejudice to the respondent in doing this and that the date set out was only a minor error and could be properly reconsidered.

The respondent appealed this decision to the EAT.  The first argument was that the error was not minor meaning that the Regulations would not allow the change to be made. The EAT relied upon Stiopu v Loughran [2021] when it was held that misnaming a respondent could be a minor error and whether it was would be a question of fact.  In this situation, it was regarded as a minor error considering the name that was actually used for the respondent. The respondent further argued that it was an error of law which the Tribunal had reconsidered and it ought to have been the EAT by way of appeal. The EAT rejected this citing that it was a case management decision and not a judgment. Therefore, in concluding the EAT found that the Tribunal had made its decisions in the interests of justice and in line with the overriding objective. The decision thus avoided unnecessary delay and the creation of artificial barriers in allowing genuine claims to proceed.

Practical Lessons

This case does get into some of the more procedural aspects that can arise in an Industrial Tribunal case. The main focus was the distinction between an error and a minor error where the EAT have made it clear that it is a question of fact rather than any legal test being applied to the error. Additionally, the EAT has also demonstrated the importance of the overriding objective and that would similarly apply to the Northern Ireland Industrial Tribunal and should be taken into account in terms of dealing with procedural issues that may arise in any given case.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62d01b498fa8f50bfcd3f4a4/Leicester_City_Council_v_Ms_R_Patel__2022__EAT_109.pdf