Savage v JC 1991 LLP (t/a John Campbell, Messengers at Arms & Sheriff Officers)

An early-conciliation certificate which identifies a prospective respondent by an individual’s name and trading description may be apt to proceedings against that individual. It should not be treated as identifying a limited liability partnership merely because the individual’s business description creates uncertainty about the employer’s legal identity.

Where the available documents leave the identity of the employer unclear, a claimant may proceed against each distinct prospective respondent named in separate certificates, pending final determination of that issue. Duplicate descriptions of the same legal entity should be removed from the proceedings.

The claimant alleged that her dismissal was unfair. Her original contract named John Campbell, but later documents suggested that a limited liability partnership might have become her employer. She had not been informed of any transfer of employment.

She obtained two ACAS early-conciliation certificates: one naming “John Campbell Messengers At Arms and Sheriff Officers” and one naming JC 1991 LLP. The Employment Tribunal rejected the claim against John Campbell as an individual, holding that no certificate related to him.

The claimant appealed. The central issue was whether the first certificate was apt to a claim against John Campbell individually, rather than being treated as a certificate for the LLP already named twice in the ET1.

1. Appeal allowed and remitted. The Employment Tribunal erred in treating the two ACAS certificates as relating to the first and second respondents, which were the same LLP. The first certificate instead identified an individual, John Campbell, with a trading description; the second identified the LLP.

2. The trading description did not establish that the business was an LLP. A sole trader may be identified by name followed by a description of the trade or profession. The employer’s own correspondence had not clearly identified the legal entity employing the claimant and could reasonably have caused uncertainty.

3. The claimant was therefore entitled to name both prospective respondents pending clarification of the identity of her employer. The second application to ACAS expressly stated that an application had previously been made against John Campbell and that the claimant had then learned that the business might be a limited partnership.

4. Paragraph 2 of the Schedule to the Employment Tribunals (Early Conciliation: Exemptions and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2014 required the prospective respondent’s name and address. That requirement was separately met on the two ACAS forms.

5. The claimant accepted that the first and second respondents in the ET1 were the same entity. The second respondent was consequently to be deleted. The claim was remitted to proceed against the LLP and John Campbell trading as John Campbell Messengers At Arms and Sheriff Officers, subject to resolution of the employment-identity issue.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Allowed the claimant’s appeal and remitted the claim to the Employment Tribunal.
• Employment Tribunal: On 25 August 2016, rejected the claim against John Campbell individually on the basis that there was no ACAS early-conciliation certificate relating to him.