Mr. M Thompson v First Home Improvements (England) Ltd — 2022

This judgment concerns the respondent's application for reconsideration of a preliminary decision, not the substantive merits of the claimant's employment claims. The claimant had presented a claim form on 10 May 2021 listing unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, unpaid notice pay and holiday pay against 'First Home Improvements'. The issue before the tribunal was whether the claim should have been rejected under rule 10 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the respondent named on the claim form was said to be the wrong company.

Employment Judge Buckley refused reconsideration. He held that there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked because the claim form did contain the minimum information required by rule 10, namely the respondent's name and address. The judge found that the respondent identified on the claim form was the initial respondent named in the form and on the ACAS certificate, even though the claimant intended to sue a different company and the form had been served on the wrong company before being resent to the current respondent.

The tribunal rejected the submission that, following Sterling v United Learning Trust, the respondent details had to be 'accurate' in the sense of reflecting the claimant's subjective intention. The judge distinguished rule 10 from rule 12, noting that rule 12 contains a rescue provision for certain name or address errors but rule 10 does not, and reasoned that rule 10 is directed to the objective contents of the form rather than the claimant's intention. He also noted that E.ON Control Solutions Ltd v Caspall required the tribunal to consider rejection before amendment, and he said he had done so before allowing amendment at the earlier hearing.

The reconsideration application was therefore refused. No money award was made, and the judgment records only the procedural ruling on the rule 10 issue.