Case 3303303/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person. For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 3303303/2019
- Decision date
- 3 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore Appearances
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person. For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 24 January 2019 Mrs Helen Chittock submitted a claim alleging indirect discrimination on grounds of disability against the Royal College of Nursing, and said in box 8 that the claim was being brought by both herself and Mrs Hayley Woods. The respondent later queried why Mrs Woods appeared as a second claimant and said the claim form had only been completed with Mrs Chittock's address.
At the hearing on 13 March 2020, Mr Perry submitted that the claim in relation to Mrs Woods had to be rejected because rule 10 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 requires a claim form to include each claimant's address. Employment Judge S Moore accepted that submission and held that the tribunal had no discretion to waive the requirement.
The judgment ordered that the claim form be returned to Mrs Woods with a notice of rejection explaining that it had been rejected because it did not contain her address. The tribunal also directed that the notice should explain how she could apply for reconsideration under rule 13 on the basis that the defect can be rectified. No merits finding or monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claim form was rejected under rule 10 because it did not contain Mrs Woods' address; the judgment did not determine the merits of the disability discrimination allegation. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 10, Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- rule 13, Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.