in person For the v Respondent — 2024

The tribunal sat at London Central by video on 5 September 2024 before Employment Judge P Klimov sitting alone. The hearing was a preliminary one about ACAS early conciliation, limitation, identity of respondents, and case management. Ms Maudlyn Aaron appeared in person; the respondents were represented by Mr N Roberts of counsel.

The judge held that Imperial College of Science, Technology & Medicine was named as the first respondent in the ET1, with Ann Kelly's name in brackets serving only as additional detail. He found that Ann Kelly had not been validly named as a respondent on the prescribed form. If that construction were wrong, he said it would in any event be in the interests of justice to add Imperial College as a respondent under Rule 34.

The tribunal declined to dismiss the claim under Rule 27 because the mandatory notice procedure had not been followed, but it allowed the strike-out application to be considered under Rule 37. It waived the failure to obtain separate ACAS early conciliation certificates for the individual respondents under Rule 6 and held that, although the claim was out of time, it was just and equitable to extend time under s.123(1) Equality Act 2010. The judge described the case as essentially one of race discrimination and victimisation arising from employment at Imperial College. No substantive merits finding or remedy award was made at this hearing, and the claim was allowed to proceed further against the respondents other than Ann Kelly, subject to the separate question of whether she should be added as a party.