Claimant v Intrust Advisory Ltd — 2020

The claimant applied under Rule 70 to reconsider the decision rejecting the claims against the second and third respondents, Company Governance Ltd and Webster Promotions Ltd, because the early conciliation certificate numbers were incorrect. The tribunal noted that the claimant had accepted in an email of 12 March 2020 that the rejection was correct in law, and the remaining issue was whether the defect could be cured by amendment or by an extension of time.

The tribunal held that, following E.ON Control Solutions Ltd v Caspall, a claim with an incorrect early conciliation number must be rejected. It said an extension of time can only be granted within existing proceedings, but there were no existing proceedings against the second and third respondents because the email sent by the claimant's solicitors on 30 October 2019 was not a valid presentation of a claim form under Rule 8 and the Presidential Practice Direction on Presentation of Claims 2017.

The tribunal distinguished Adams v British Telecommunications plc and North East London NHS Foundation Trust v Zhou on the basis that, in those cases, a second claim had been validly presented so that the time issue could be considered. It also referred to the Dedman principle in explaining the authorities on adviser error. The application for reconsideration was therefore refused and the claims against the second and third respondents remained rejected. The claim continued against the first respondent, Intrust Advisory Ltd, and the listed merits hearing was converted to a telephone case management hearing.