Birmingham City Council v Adams

A claim form that cross-refers to particulars attached to another claimant's ET1 can satisfy the requirement to present the "details of the claim" where, read objectively, a reasonable employer could identify which particulars were relied on.

The correct approach to Rule 1(4)(e) of the 2004 Employment Tribunal Rules is non-technical and liberal. The rule should secure clarity for the respondent, not trap unrepresented claimants by undue formalism.

The appellant, Birmingham City Council, appealed an Employment Tribunal order which refused to dismiss a series of equal pay claims for alleged want of jurisdiction. The claims had been presented on separate ET1 forms. One ET1 contained full particulars (Kalaisho Devi). Several other claimants ticked the equal-pay box and cross-referred to the particulars attached to that ET1, without attaching those particulars to their own forms.

The Council applied under the procedural rules to dismiss those cross-referencing claims for lack of jurisdiction. The Employment Tribunal (Employment Judge Findlay) refused to dismiss. The Council appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on the construction of Rule 1(4)(e) of the 2004 Employment Tribunal Rules: whether cross-reference to another ET1 supplied the "details of the claim" required to present a claim.

The central question was whether Rule 1(4)(e) required each claimant to set out particulars on their own ET1, or whether cross-reference could suffice where an objective reasonable employer could identify the relied particulars.

• Employment Tribunal (Birmingham): Employment Judge Findlay refused the respondent's application to dismiss the cross-referencing equal pay claims and provided written reasons (referred to in this appeal).
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: HHJ Martyn Barklem dismissed the appellant's appeal against the Employment Tribunal's order (this judgment) (see decision).