Case details
Summary
It is not necessary for an early conciliation certificate to state a company's registered office. Instead, the address provided must be sufficient to enable ACAS to contact the prospective respondent. Where ACAS is able to contact the respondent at the address provided, the certificate is compliant with the Early Conciliation Rules.
Factual background
The appellant brought an unfair dismissal claim after two separate early conciliation (EC) contacts with ACAS produced two EC certificates. The first EC contact was made personally by the claimant and used an address at which a respondent director met the claimant. The second contact was made by the claimant's solicitors, who were unaware of the first contact. The Employment Tribunal held the claim out of time if the first certificate governed Day B under section 207B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant appealed on a narrow point: whether the first EC certificate was invalid because it gave the respondent's "wrong address." The EAT was asked to determine the legal effect of an address on an EC certificate and Rule 12 of the ET Rules in that context.
Held
(2) Rule 12(1)(f) of the Employment Tribunal Rules requires tribunal staff to refer a claim to a judge when the name on the claim form differs from the name on the EC certificate. The wording of Rule 12(1)(f) does not require tribunal staff to refer cases where only the address differs. Therefore the saving discretion in Rule 12(2A) addressing minor errors in "name or address" is a judge's matter, not a staff referral duty (see paras [15]–[18]).
(3) Applying the purposive, non‑technical approach established in prior EAT authority, an address given to ACAS is compliant if it is an address at which the respondent can be contacted in relation to the business. There is no requirement that the address be the registered office (paras [19]–[20]).
(4) On the facts the first EC certificate was valid because ACAS could contact the respondent at the address provided. Consequently Day B is the date of the first certificate and the claim was presented out of time. The Employment Tribunal's dismissal for want of jurisdiction was therefore sustained (paras [11]–[13]; [21]–[22]).
Appellate history
- Employment Appeal Tribunal Appeal against a Leeds Employment Tribunal decision concerning time limits and the validity of an early conciliation certificate; judgment delivered here (EAT) (see paras [1]–[3]).
- Employment Tribunal (Leeds) Employment Judge Cox dismissed the claim for want of jurisdiction as presented out of time; reasons issued 14 January 2019 (referred to at para [2]).
Key cases cited
This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.
Cases citing this case
This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.