ET Failed to Consider Whether Rejecting Claim Was in Interests of Justice

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled that the Employment Tribunal (ET) erred in law by failing to consider whether rejecting a claimant’s case was in the interests of justice. The case, Chen v Coach Stores Ltd, provides valuable guidance for employees and employers involved in employment tribunal claims.

The claimant, a sales associate, was dismissed from her role and believed the dismissal was unfair dismissal and/or discriminatory dismissal. She obtained an ACAS early conciliation certificate naming her employer as the prospective respondent. However, when filing her ET1 claim form, she mistakenly named an HR manager of the parent company instead of the actual employer. On that basis, the ET rejected her claim.

On appeal, the EAT confirmed that the ET had applied the wrong test. Before rejecting a claim due to discrepancies between the early conciliation certificate and the ET1 form, the tribunal must consider whether the error is material and, importantly, whether it would be in the interests of justice to reject the claim. The rejection letter showed no evidence of this consideration, amounting to an error of law.

The EAT found that while the HR manager was incorrectly listed, the intended respondent was clearly the employer. The claim form contained the correct contact details, identified incidents of alleged discrimination and unfair treatment, and demonstrated that the employer was the true target. The fact that the claimant was unrepresented was also important, with the tribunal stressing that unnecessary formality should not prevent access to justice.

The EAT concluded that rejecting the claim would cause serious prejudice to the claimant, while the employer would face little disadvantage if the case proceeded. It was therefore not in the interests of justice to reject the claim. The matter was remitted to the ET for further consideration.

This decision reinforces the principle that employment tribunals must balance technical rules with fairness, particularly where claimants are unrepresented. For employees and employers alike, the case highlights the importance of clarity and fairness in tribunal proceedings.