ET erred in determining that a clear error in the named respondent was sufficient to reject the claim

In Ms Y Chen v Coach Stores Ltd [2025] EAT 108, the claimant brought a claim in the employment tribunal (ET) alleging that her dismissal was unfair and/or discriminatory. However, the ET, acting by a legal officer, rejected the claim on the basis that the name of the respondent on the ET1 did not match the name of the employer on the claimant’s early conciliation certificate. The claimant applied for reconsideration (which was unsuccessful) and appealed to the EAT, arguing that the ET erred in rejecting the claim.

The EAT allowed the appeal because:

• the ET had failed to apply rule 12(2A) of the then-applicable ET Rules set out in Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, SI 2013/1237, which required it to consider whether the mismatch between the ET1 and the early conciliation certificate amounted to an ‘error’ and, if so, whether it was in the interests of justice to reject the claim;

• as was established in Stiopu v Loughran UKEAT/0214/20, where a legal officer has made a decision that it is not in the interests of justice to allow a claim, it should be made clear in their reasons that, at the very least, the statutory test was considered and applied. That failure alone was sufficient for the EAT to dispose of the appeal and remit the matter back to the ET;

• there was clearly an ‘error’. Even though the ET1 named an individual HR manager as the person against whom the claim was brought, the early conciliation certificate named the claimant’s employer, Coach Stores Ltd, as the prospective respondent and there were various indications in the details of claim that the company was the ‘intended target’ of the claims;

• it was in the interests of justice to allow the claim because the claimant was attempting to bring the claim against an identifiable employer in respect of whom the correct address and contact details were provided, the claim was not obviously deficient and the error could be easily remedied. The prejudice to the claimant were the claim to be rejected was far greater than the prejudice to the respondent.

The decision of the ET was set aside and the claim was allowed to proceed.

Pro Employment Law

Formed in 2017, following significant legislative changes designed to increase competition within the legal services marketplace, Pro Employment Law is a progressive set of barristers’ chambers, consisting only of experienced employment law barristers, offering a full range of specialist advisory, case management, and advocacy services directly to the public through the Public Access scheme. We supply our legal services exclusively in the area of Employment Law to clients located across England & Wales. All of the legal services we supply are covered by professional indemnity insurance with Bar Mutual.