Case 1403821/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Ritcher v Bath Cricket Club — 2022
- Case reference
- 1403821/2020
- Decision date
- 31 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Ritcher
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a reserved preliminary judgment on the respondent's application to strike out the claim under rule 37 and/or reject it under rules 10 and 12 of the Employment Tribunals Rules 2013 because of Early Conciliation issues. The claimant had entered Early Conciliation against Bath Cricket Club on 17 April 2020 and against Bath Cricket Club Limited on 20 April 2020 after seeing her payslip, and ACAS issued certificates R139887/20/74 and R140335/20/19 respectively. The claim form presented on 20 July 2020 named Bath Cricket Club Limited and used the corresponding certificate number, and the case management order later substituted Bath Cricket Club as the correct respondent under rule 34.
The respondent argued that only the first certificate was valid, relying on HMRC v Serra Garau and E.ON Control Solutions Ltd v Caspall, and said the claim should have been rejected under rule 10 or rule 12 because the ET1 did not refer to the correct Early Conciliation certificate. The claimant argued that the 2020 amendments to rule 12, including rule 12(1)(da) and rule 12(2ZA), applied to the proceedings and that any error was a minor and understandable confusion about the identity of her employer.
The tribunal rejected the respondent's application. It found that the claimant had complied with the Early Conciliation requirement in relation to both Bath Cricket Club and Bath Cricket Club Limited, that the ET1 contained the correct Early Conciliation number for the respondent named on the form, and that the later substitution of Bath Cricket Club for Bath Cricket Club Limited did not require fresh Early Conciliation steps. The judge distinguished Serra Garau and E.ON as cases involving multiple certificates against the same respondent, and concluded that even if there had been an error, it was minor and it would not be in the interests of justice to reject the claim. No substantive findings on unfair dismissal, discrimination, equal pay, or wages were made, and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Preliminary application by the respondent to strike out or reject the claim on Early Conciliation/jurisdiction grounds was dismissed; no substantive merits were determined in this judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 18A Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- rules 10, 12, 34 and 6 ET Rules 2013
- rule 12(1)(da) and rule 12(2ZA)
- HM Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Serra Garau
- E.ON Control Solutions Ltd v Caspall
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.