Mr. David Miller, claimant’s father. For the v Respondent — 2018

The claimant brought an unfair dismissal claim on 23 May 2014, after his employment ended on either 4 or 5 March 2014. The claim was later rejected for non-payment of the tribunal issue fee, but after the Supreme Court held the fee regime unlawful, HMCTS invited reinstatement and the claim was reinstated in January 2018. At the preliminary hearing the respondent also raised an argument that the dispute had previously been settled, but the judge made no decision on that point and confined the ruling to the early conciliation issue.

The tribunal accepted that section 18A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 and the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013 applied to this claim form. The claimant had ticked the form to say that he did not have an early conciliation certificate number because his employer had already been in touch with ACAS. However, the evidence before the tribunal was that the claimant himself had contacted ACAS and that ACAS did not proceed with conciliation. The judge found that the claimant had not shown that the regulation 3(1)(c) exemption applied because the respondent had not contacted ACAS in relation to the dispute.

Relying on Sterling v United Learning Trust, the tribunal held that the absence of an early conciliation certificate number meant the claim form was not completed in the way required by rule 8(1) and rule 10(1)(c), and that rule 6 did not give the tribunal discretion to waive that requirement. The judge therefore struck out the unfair dismissal claim. The judgment records sympathy for the claimant’s position, but concludes that the tribunal was bound to dismiss the proceedings on the early conciliation point.