Case 3311663/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms W Sloan v And TBG Flex Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3311663/2020
- Decision date
- 16 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kurrein Statement
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms W Sloan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary issue decision rather than a merits judgment. The claimant started work for the respondent as a floor manager on 3 December 2019. She began early conciliation on 18 August 2020 naming "Your Choice Barnet" as the prospective respondent, and presented her ET1 on 14 September 2020 identifying "TBG Flex Limited (Your Choice Barnet)" as the respondent.
The respondent argued that the claim should be rejected for breach of Rule 12(1)(f) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. The tribunal noted that the claimant said she had worked within Your Choice Barnet, that the proceedings had come to the respondent's knowledge, and that TBG Flex Limited and Your Choice Barnet were closely linked. Having considered Mist v Derby Community NHS Trust and Giny v SMA Transport Ltd, Employment Judge Kurrein treated the naming error as minor and held that it would not be in the interests of justice to reject the claim.
The judgment therefore held that the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the claimant's claims because she had complied with the early conciliation requirements. No substantive liability findings or monetary award were made in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal held it had jurisdiction to hear the claimant's claims and rejected the respondent's Rule 12(1)(f) objection as a minor naming error. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 12(1)(f) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Mist v Derby Community NHS Trust [2016] ICR 543
- Giny v SMA Transport Ltd UKEAT/0317/16
- interests of justice
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.