In person. Assisted by an Interpreter: Ms A Ameer (Language: Urdu). For the v Mr P Nainthy (Solicitor). — 2019

The claimant was dismissed by letter dated 10 August 2018. He began ACAS early conciliation on 18 September 2018 and the certificate issued on 18 October 2018. Middlesex Law Chambers presented an ET1 on 10 November 2018 referring to unfair dismissal and race discrimination, but the form ticked that no ACAS certificate number was provided and described the case as including an application for interim relief. The tribunal accepted the earlier finding that there was no valid interim relief claim on the form and no basis for one on the facts.

The claim was rejected on 19 December 2018 and re-submitted with the ACAS certificate on 8 January 2019. Applying s.111 ERA 1996 and the reasonable practicability test, and referring to Deadman, Northamptonshire County Council v Entwhistle, and Marks and Spencer Plc v Williams-Ryan, Employment Judge King held that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time if the representatives had filed it correctly. The tribunal also found that the further delay after rejection meant the claim was not presented within any further reasonable period. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

At the preliminary hearing on 26 September 2019, the claimant withdrew his race discrimination complaint and it was dismissed upon withdrawal, leaving only the unfair dismissal claim live for the present hearing. On the wasted costs application, the tribunal found that Middlesex Law Chambers had acted improperly, unreasonably or negligently in presenting the claim without an ACAS number and on an unavailable interim relief basis. Having found that the claimant had paid two receipts totalling £1,150 and that the firm had notice of the hearing but did not attend, the tribunal ordered Middlesex Law Chambers to pay £1,150 in wasted costs.