Campos & Ors v The Farmright Group Ltd & Ors

Where additional claimants are clearly identified in a prescribed ET1 and accompanying schedule, minor formal defects, such as using a schedule rather than an ET1A or omitting dates of birth, do not justify refusing acceptance where the required claim information is otherwise supplied. The Employment Tribunal should adopt a practical approach consistent with the overriding objective.

The Tribunal also has power to permit amendment to add claimants. It is particularly important to avoid a procedural refusal that would require fresh claims which would then be time-barred.

Eight employees presented an ET1 against companies which later entered liquidation. Their solicitors subsequently submitted amended schedules adding a third respondent and nine further claimants. The Employment Judge accepted the additional respondent but refused to add the further claimants, directing them to present fresh ET1s.

A fresh presentation would have been out of time. The claimants sought a review and written reasons, both of which were refused. They appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, contending that the additional claims should have been accepted despite the minor defects in their presentation, or alternatively allowed by amendment.

1. Appeal allowed. The Employment Judge erred in law by refusing to accept the additional claimants while permitting the addition of a third respondent.

2. The additional claimants’ details had been supplied in the amended schedules. The only defects were the omission of dates of birth and the use of schedules rather than an ET1A. Those were neither relevant nor material where the prescribed ET1 otherwise contained the information required for the claims. Following Hamling v Coxlease School Ltd [2007] ICR 108 and Unison & Others v National Probation Service South Yorkshire & Others [2009] UKEAT/0339/09/SN, the claims should have been accepted.

3. The alternative route of amendment was also available under paragraph 10(2)(q) of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitutions and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004. The court accepted the submissions based on the injustice and hardship approach to amendment.

4. The consequence of requiring fresh ET1s was material: the further claimants would be out of time. The EAT substituted its decision, added the two claimants notified on 8 May 2012 and the seven notified on 10 May 2012 to the ET1, and directed that the proceedings continue in the usual way.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Allowed the appeal and substituted a decision adding the nine claimants to the ET1: [2012] UKEAT 0488_12_2011.
• Employment Tribunal, Exeter: Employment Judge Hollow, by letter notified on 11 June 2012, accepted the addition of a third respondent but refused to add the further claimants and directed fresh ET1s.