Case 3304017/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Repeat Prescription Order Line Ltd T/a Halls The Chemist — 2020
- Case reference
- 3304017/2020
- Decision date
- 19 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kurrein Statement
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant started work for the respondent on 5 August 2019 to complete her pharmacist qualification. She began ACAS early conciliation on 7 February 2020 naming “Repeat Prescription Order Line Ltd t/a Halls The Chemist” as the prospective respondent, and early conciliation ended on 21 March 2020. On 18 April 2020 she presented a claim form naming “Mr S Damani” as the respondent, with Halls The Chemist given on the first line of the address.
The respondent said the claim should have been rejected under Rule 12(1)(f) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. The tribunal referred to Mist v Derby Community NHS Trust and Giny v SMA Transport Ltd and held that the claimant's error was of a minor nature. It accepted that the proceedings had come to the respondent's knowledge, noted that responses had been entered for both Repeat Prescription Order Line Ltd t/a Halls The Chemist and Mr Damani, and concluded that it would not be in the interests of justice for the claim to be rejected.
The tribunal therefore held that it had jurisdiction to hear the claimant's claims. No substantive liability findings or monetary remedy were determined in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Preliminary Rule 12(1)(f) point only. The tribunal held that the claimant's misnaming of the respondent was minor, that the proceedings had come to the respondent's knowledge, and that the claim should not be rejected. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 12(1)(f) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Mist v Derby Community NHS Trust [2016] ICR 543
- Giny v SMA Transport Ltd UKEAT/0317/16
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.