E.ON Control Solutions Ltd v Caspall

An Employment Tribunal must reject a claim form that does not contain the accurate ACAS early conciliation number required by the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The obligation applies whenever the defect is considered and is not limited to the initial administrative stage.

Because rejection ends the proceedings, the Tribunal has no power to correct the defect by amendment under Rule 29. Rule 6 and the overriding objective cannot create a discretion inconsistent with the mandatory rejection provisions. The claimant’s remedy is to rectify the defect through the reconsideration procedure under Rule 13.

The claimant presented several Employment Tribunal claims arising from his dismissal. Some claims gave the ACAS early conciliation number issued for another claimant. Another relied on a second certificate which was invalid for the same matter and was presented outside the primary limitation period.

The Employment Tribunal had not rejected the relevant claims under Rules 10 or 12. At a preliminary hearing it treated the error in the first claim as amendable and allowed the ACAS number to be corrected. The respondent appealed, arguing that the claims were required to be rejected and that neither amendment powers, Rule 6 nor the overriding objective could cure the defect.

1. Appeal allowed. Both relevant claim forms failed to contain an accurate ACAS early conciliation number. They were claims of the kind described by Rule 12(1)(c) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
2. Rule 12(2) imposed a mandatory obligation to reject such claims and return the claim forms with reasons and information about reconsideration. The obligation was not confined to the stage immediately after presentation. It arose when the defect was later considered by an Employment Judge.
3. Once the claims were rejected, there was no claim or proceeding before the Tribunal capable of amendment under Rule 29. The proper route was Rule 13. If the defect were rectified, Rule 13(4) would treat the claim as presented when rectified, leaving any limitation issue for determination under the applicable statutory test.
4. Rule 6 could not be used to waive or vary the mandatory obligation in Rule 12(2). The reasoning in Cranwell v Cullen and Baisley v South Lanarkshire Council was applied. Rule 6 addressed non-compliance in proceedings; a claim which had to be rejected and returned had not instituted proceedings before the Tribunal.
5. The overriding objective did not alter that conclusion. Fairness, access to justice, absence of prejudice and the technical nature of the error could not justify effectively rewriting Rule 12. Sterling v United Learning Trust and HM Revenue & Customs v Serra Garau supported the mandatory approach, while the possible relevance of the reasonable-practicability authorities did not permit amendment.
6. Under section 35 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, there was only one possible outcome, so the EAT itself rejected the claims. Any issue arising on reconsideration and rectification was left for further directions or remission.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: allowed the respondent’s appeal from the Employment Tribunal’s preliminary decision and rejected the relevant claims under Rule 12(2).
• Employment Tribunal: allowed amendment of the claimant’s first claim to correct the ACAS early conciliation number.