Y Chen v Coach Stores Ltd

Where the respondent named in an ET1 differs from the prospective respondent named in the early-conciliation certificate, rule 12(2A) requires the decision-maker to address two further questions before rejecting the claim. The decision-maker must consider whether the discrepancy resulted from an error concerning a name or address and, if so, whether rejection would be in the interests of justice.

A short decision is permissible, but it must indicate that those statutory questions were considered. The inquiry should be practical and avoid excessive formality, particularly for an unrepresented claimant. Where the documents show that the employer was plainly the intended respondent, the error is readily remediable, and rejection would cause substantially greater prejudice to the claimant, the claim should proceed.

The claimant, an unrepresented former sales associate of Coach Stores Ltd, obtained an ACAS early-conciliation certificate naming Coach Stores Ltd as prospective respondent. Her subsequent ET1 named an HR manager associated with the respondent's parent company, but gave the employer's address, identified her workplace as Coach, and contained allegations directed principally at Coach.

A legal officer rejected the ET1 because the name on it did not match the name on the early-conciliation certificate. The claimant's late reconsideration application was rejected as out of time. She appealed the rejection decision.

The central issue was whether the legal officer had complied with rule 12(2A) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, and whether the EAT should determine for itself whether the claim should be rejected.

1. Appeal allowed. The Tribunal's rejection decision was set aside and a decision that the claim proceed was substituted.

2. Rule 12(2A) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 imposes a staged inquiry. A mismatch between the ET1 and early-conciliation certificate may bring the claim within rule 12(1)(f), but it does not alone justify rejection. The decision-maker must consider whether there was an error concerning a name or address and, if there was, whether it would be in the interests of justice to reject the claim. The removal of the word “minor” from the earlier version of the rule did not alter that approach.

3. The rejection letter disclosed only that the names did not match. It gave no indication that either the question of error or the interests-of-justice question had been considered. Although reasons for a non-judgment decision may be very short under rule 62(4), they must reveal that the applicable statutory test was applied. The legal officer therefore erred in law.

4. The EAT could determine the issue itself under section 35 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. The material was documentary, both represented parties had addressed it, further remission would cause delay, and the result was clear.

5. There was an error. The certificate named Coach, the ET1 used Coach's address and identified its workplace, and the particulars repeatedly alleged wrongdoing by Coach while making no factual allegation against the HR manager. Reading the documents without excessive formality, as appropriate for an unrepresented claimant, showed that Coach had always been the intended respondent.

6. It was not in the interests of justice to reject the claim. Coach was readily identifiable; the pleaded claim contained specific allegations; the naming error was easily remedied; and rejection would cause the claimant far greater prejudice than allowing Coach to face the claim. Finality carried limited weight because the matter was at a very early stage and the rejection letter itself contained an error of law.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: allowed the appeal, set aside the Watford Employment Tribunal legal officer's rejection of the ET1, and substituted a decision allowing the claim to proceed: [2025] EAT 108.
• Employment Tribunal: legal officer rejected the ET1 on 2 November 2023 because the respondent's name did not match that on the early-conciliation certificate. Employment Judge Anstis rejected the claimant's reconsideration application as out of time on 12 March 2024.