Ms T Hein v M.J.S. Hotels Limited t/as the Quorn Lodge Hotel — 2024

Ms Hein began employment with M.J.S Hotels Ltd on 1 August 2005 and resigned on 21 September 2023. She started early conciliation on 22 September 2023 and presented her ET1 on 7 October 2023, but named Col Mann rather than M.J.S Hotels Ltd as respondent. The tribunal found that she had already identified M.J.S Hotels Ltd as her employer, had the Acas certificate showing the putative respondent, and had no reason to think Col Mann was her employer.

The ET1 was rejected on 29 January 2024 because the respondent named on the form did not match the respondent on the EC certificate. When the error was corrected, Employment Judge Welch accepted the claim and deemed the presentation date to be 31 January 2024. The preliminary issue before Employment Judge Adkinson was therefore whether the claims were in time, and if not whether it was not reasonably practicable to present them in time.

The tribunal held that the claims should have been presented by 27 December 2023 under section 111 ERA 1996 and Article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. Applying the not reasonably practicable test as explained in Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd v Britton, and referring also to Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan, Adams v British Telecommunications plc and Software Box v Gannon, the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for Ms Hein to have presented the claims in time. It found that her ill-health did not prevent her from naming the correct respondent, because she was able to complete the rest of the ET1 in detail, transpose the Acas certificate number correctly, and had already discussed the respondent's identity with Acas.

The tribunal accepted that Ms Hein was mentally unwell and had reported anxiety about her workplace from around mid-July 2023, but held that this did not make the naming error unavoidable. It found that she deliberately chose to name Col Mann, did not actually believe he was her employer, and was not misled. Because the claims were time-barred and the later reasonable-period question did not arise, the constructive unfair dismissal claim and both breach of contract claims were dismissed.