TIC International Ltd v Ali

Compliance with statutory early-conciliation requirements is assessed in relation to the matter before proceedings are instituted. Where early conciliation has been completed against the respondent originally named, a later substitution of the correct respondent does not itself require fresh early conciliation if the claim concerns the same matter.

The early-conciliation legislation and Regulations address a prospective claimant. Once proceedings have been instituted, an applicant seeking substitution in those proceedings is not, at that stage, a prospective claimant in respect of the existing matter. A difference between the name on the ACAS certificate and that of a substituted respondent therefore does not deprive the Tribunal of jurisdiction in those circumstances.

The claimant, a former employee, contacted ACAS and presented an Employment Tribunal claim naming Islamic Relief UK as respondent. He supplied the address of TIC International Ltd, his actual employer. ACAS contacted that address, TIC participated in discussions, and TIC later filed a response identifying itself as the employer and requesting substitution as respondent.

The Employment Tribunal substituted TIC and rejected its argument that the claim had to be dismissed because early conciliation had not been completed in TIC’s name. TIC appealed on that jurisdictional issue. By the time of the appeal, the claimant’s substantive claims had been dismissed, so the appeal was academic; nevertheless, the EAT determined it on its merits.

The central issue was whether substitution of the correct respondent, whose name differed from that on the ACAS certificate, meant that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Tribunal did not err in holding that it had jurisdiction and in refusing to dismiss the claim for non-compliance with early-conciliation requirements.

2. TIC accepted that the Tribunal had power to amend the title of proceedings and to add or substitute a respondent. TIC had itself sought substitution after responding to the claim and identifying itself as the claimant’s employer.

3. The relevant early-conciliation procedure had been completed in respect of the claim originally instituted. The claim against TIC after substitution concerned the same matter as the claim against the originally named respondent. The fact that the ACAS certificate retained the original, incorrect name did not invalidate the proceedings.

4. Mrs Justice Slade applied the reasoning in Drake International Systems Ltd & Others v Blue Arrow Ltd UKEAT/0282/15. The statutory scheme and the Employment Tribunals (Early Conciliation: Exemptions and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2014 concern a prospective claimant before proceedings are instituted. After proceedings have been instituted, a person applying to substitute a respondent to the existing claim is not a prospective claimant in respect of that matter.

5. The appeal had become academic because the claimant’s substantive claims had subsequently been dismissed. Although that might have justified declining to hear it, the appeal had been listed for a full hearing and was determined on its merits. The court therefore did not decide the suggested abuse-of-process issue.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: dismissed TIC’s appeal and upheld the Tribunal’s refusal to dismiss the claim for alleged non-compliance with early conciliation.
• Employment Tribunal, Birmingham: Employment Judge Goodier, judgment sent on 6 May 2015, substituted TIC as respondent and rejected its jurisdictional objection. A later substantive hearing before Employment Judge Camp resulted in dismissal of all the claimant’s claims on 1 July 2015.