Ms Julie Rimmington v Sarah Kinsley and 1 other — 2019

Ms Julie Rimmington presented her claim on 31 August 2018 alleging unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, notice pay, holiday pay and unlawful deductions from wages. The early conciliation certificate named "Blindz" as the prospective respondent, but the ET1 named only Sarah Kinsley. No response was filed by the original deadline, and the matter came before Employment Judge Holmes at a preliminary hearing on 7 February 2019 to determine the respondents' application for an extension of time and related case management issues.

The tribunal found that it could not be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Sarah Kinsley had received the original claim form. It noted that the claim form and tribunal correspondence did not use the word "Blindz", that the address at 490-492 Oldham Road had mixed postal arrangements, and that the respondent's evidence about the registered office and delivery arrangements was not wholly clear. The tribunal did not accept that the claimant was acting deviously by naming Sarah Kinsley alone, and it recorded that once the respondent became aware of the proceedings she attended the 7 November 2018 hearing and made clear that she wished to defend the claims.

Applying the extension-of-time discretion in Kwik Save Stores Ltd v Swain and Moroak (t/a Blake Envelopes) v Cromie, the tribunal concluded that the response filed on 6 February 2019 disclosed arguable defences. It accepted that there was an issue as to whether the employer was Sarah Kinsley personally or The Blindz Store Limited, and it took into account that refusing the extension would deprive the respondents of a defence without changing the final hearing date already listed for September 2019. The tribunal therefore granted the extension, joined The Blindz Store Limited as a respondent, accepted the response on behalf of both respondents, and made further case management orders.

Those further orders required the claimant to provide further particulars of her indirect disability discrimination, reasonable adjustments and victimisation claims, to identify the PCPs and protected acts relied on, and to serve medical and related evidence relevant to whether she was disabled. The judgment records that the claimant relied on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes and a degenerative spinal disease, and that the tribunal would consider whether disability was conceded or whether a preliminary hearing on disability would be required.