Ms C McCann, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2020

At a preliminary hearing on 28 July 2020, Employment Judge Brown considered the Respondents' objections to service and to the validity of the ACAS early conciliation process. The claim form presented on 6 March 2020 included complaints of constructive ordinary unfair dismissal, protected disclosure automatically unfair dismissal, TUPE automatic unfair dismissal, protected disclosure detriment, and a GDPR/Data Protection Act complaint, but the hearing did not determine the merits of those substantive complaints.

The tribunal held that permission to serve the First, Third and Fourth Respondents outside the jurisdiction was not required under the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013. It rejected the argument that those Respondents were non-parties until served, and held that the rules expressly contemplated claims with a foreign element. The tribunal also held that, if service was irregular, rule 91 allowed the claim to be treated as delivered because it had in fact come to the attention of the First, Third and Fourth Respondents through the Second Respondent and its solicitors.

On the ACAS and ET1 challenge, the tribunal held that the early conciliation certificates were not defective and that the claim form should not be rejected. It found that the claimant had notified ACAS of disputes against all four Respondents, that ACAS had issued certificates, that the claim forms contained the early conciliation numbers, and that the use of the Second Respondent's address was sufficient on the facts. Any address error was treated as minor and, applying the overriding objective, not a basis for rejection. No monetary award was made, and consequential directions were given for responses and disclosure.