Campbell v Jamie Stevens (Kensington) Ltd

Rule 15 of the Employment Tribunal’s (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 requires an assessment of whether claim documents were sent to the respondent. Compliance is a question of fact, applied consistently with the overriding objective in Rule 2. An incorrect trading or business name does not automatically prevent compliance where documents were sent to an appropriate place of business and the respondent could be identified with little or no confusion. Receipt is not generally required for Rule 15 compliance. Non-receipt may instead be relevant to an application for an extension of time to present a response under Rule 20.

The claimant presented a pregnancy-related employment claim naming the respondent by its trading name, Jamie Stevens Hair, at the salon where she worked. The Employment Tribunal accepted the claim and sent it to that address. The correct corporate respondent was later identified as Jamie Stevens (Kensington) Limited.

The Employment Tribunal ordered that the claim form be sent again to the company’s registered office, apparently treating the original sending as non-compliance with Rule 15. It did not determine the claimant’s Rule 21 application or any possible Rule 20 application. The appeal concerned whether Rule 15 had been complied with and what procedural consequences followed.

1. Appeal allowed. The Employment Tribunal’s decision that Rule 15 had not been complied with was set aside. The claim was remitted to a differently constituted tribunal.

2. Rule 15 must be applied consistently with Rule 2 and its requirements of dealing with cases fairly and justly, avoiding unnecessary formality and seeking flexibility. Whether documents have been sent to the respondent is a common-sense, evidence-based question of fact. Where the respondent is a company, the enquiry may include whether the documents were sent to an appropriate address, such as a place of business, and addressed so that it was apparent they were intended for the respondent. An inaccurate name is not decisive.

3. Rule 15 does not generally require service at a company’s registered office. A registered address may be appropriate on particular facts, but imposing that requirement generally would introduce unjustified formality. Practical matters, including whether the address was a place of business and whether the respondent could be identified without material confusion, are central.

4. There is no actual requirement under Rule 15 that the documents be received. Non-receipt may be relevant to a Rule 20 application for an extension of time, but is not itself relevant to Rule 15 compliance unless the name or address was so radically different that sending the documents did not amount to sending them to the respondent.

5. On the facts, the trading name was the respondent’s business name, the address was a place where the company conducted business, and correspondence was received by its sole director. Rule 15 had therefore been complied with. The Employment Tribunal had erred in principle by concentrating on form and ignoring substance, and had conducted any evidential issue irregularly by failing to hear evidence or allow challenge.

6. The case was remitted for consideration of the claimant’s Rule 21 application and any future Rule 20 application, followed by determination of the substantive claim under Rule 21 or at a final merits hearing.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: The appeal from the Employment Tribunal was allowed. The finding of non-compliance with Rule 15 was set aside and the matter was remitted to a different Employment Judge for consideration of the outstanding Rule 21 and Rule 20 matters.