Ryan v Priory Healthcare Ltd & Anor

An Employment Tribunal may not reject a claim under Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, rule 10(1)(c), where the ET1 contains an early-conciliation number. A discrepancy between the respondent named in the ET1 and on the certificate potentially engages rule 12(1)(f), but does not produce automatic rejection. The judge must address whether the provision applies, whether there was a minor naming or address error, and whether rejection serves the interests of justice under rule 12(2A).

A rejection notice must identify the rule applied and give sufficient reasons to show engagement with those matters. This enables an informed application for reconsideration under rule 13 and protects access to justice.

The Claimant, a former health care assistant, presented a further ET1 against two Priory companies after earlier proceedings had been dismissed. The ET1 contained an early-conciliation certificate number, but the certificate related to another company.

The Employment Tribunal rejected the ET1 by a notice expressly relying on rule 10(1)(c) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. On reconsideration, the Employment Judge did not uphold that basis. She instead made a fresh rejection for abuse of process under rule 12(1)(b). The Claimant did not challenge that later decision.

The appeal concerned whether the original rejection was lawful, including whether it could be treated retrospectively as a rejection under rule 12(1)(f) and rule 12(2A).

1. Appeal allowed. The original rejection under rule 10(1)(c) was unlawful. That provision concerns the absence of an early-conciliation number or specified confirmation. The ET1 did contain a certificate number, so the provision did not apply.

2. The rejection notice could not be upheld as a decision under rule 12(1)(f). Although the stated reason suggested that the certificate did not relate to either named Respondent, the notice did not refer to rule 12(1)(f) or rule 12(2A). The Employment Judge’s later email could not supply the absent reasoning.

3. Rule 12(2A) requires three judicial assessments. The judge must decide whether rule 12(1)(f) is engaged, whether there has been a minor error concerning a name or address, and whether rejecting the claim would be in the interests of justice. It does not require automatic rejection merely because the names differ. Nothing in the original notice showed that those assessments, or any relevant discretion, had been exercised.

4. The duties in rules 10(2) and 12(3) to explain a rejection are particularly important. Rejection at this early stage affects access to justice. Clear reasons allow a claimant to make the informed reconsideration application contemplated by rule 13. An ET rejecting a claim must therefore do so correctly and transparently.

5. The appeal did not revive the claim. On reconsideration, the Employment Judge had made a separate fresh rejection for abuse of process under rule 12(1)(b). As that decision had neither been appealed nor reconsidered, the claim remained rejected.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Allowed the appeal against the initial rejection notice: [2019] UKEAT 0217_18_0706.
• Employment Tribunal: Rejected the ET1 under rule 10(1)(c) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. On reconsideration, made a fresh rejection for abuse of process under rule 12(1)(b), which was not appealed.