Case 2200503/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Awill Hersi — 2020
- Case reference
- 2200503/2020
- Decision date
- 20 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brown Open
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 15 July 2020, the tribunal dealt first with a rule 12 issue about the respondent’s name. The claim form named Mr Hersi, while the ACAS early conciliation certificate named Poundland Limited. The tribunal held that this was not a minor naming error, distinguished the facts from Chard, and rejected the claim under rule 12(1)(f) and rule 12(2A) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. It found that Mr Hersi and Poundland were different legal persons and that the claim form could reasonably be understood as a claim against Mr Hersi personally.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The tribunal rejected the claim under rule 12(1)(e) because the respondent named on the claim form, Mr Hersi, did not match the respondent on the ACAS early conciliation certificate, Poundland Limited. It held the difference was not a minor error and that it was in the interests of justice to reject the claim. The tribunal also said that, if it had not already rejected the claim, it would have struck it out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Other | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- rule 12(1)(f) ET Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 12(2A) ET Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 37 ET Rules of Procedure 2013
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- Teeside Public Transport Company Limited (T/a Travel Dundee) v Riley
- Balls v Downham Market High School & College
- A v B
- North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Ezsias
- Tayside Public Transport Co Ltd (t/a Travel Dundee) v Reilly
- Anyanwu v Southbank Student’s Union
- Giny v SNA Transport Ltd
- Chard v Trowbridge Office Cleaning Services Ltd
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.