Mr J Queen v Represented by:15 - see above SSE Contracting Ltd — 2019

At a preliminary hearing on 11 April 2019, Employment Judge Rory McPherson considered the respondent's applications arising from the linked claims brought by Mr J Queen and Mr HG Haddow against SSE Contracting Ltd. The issues were the respondent's request for reconsideration of acceptance of the ET1s, its objection to the claimants' joint paper apart, and its argument that Mr Haddow's claim should not proceed on a multiple-claim form. No witnesses were called; the tribunal relied on the agreed bundle and its own records.

The tribunal refused the respondent's reconsideration applications. It held that the ET1s contained the minimum information required by Rule 10, that the staff acceptance of the claims was not a judgment for the purposes of Rule 70, and that the respondent could not use reconsideration to argue that the claims should not have been accepted. It also said that, even if reconsideration were available, it would not be necessary or in the interests of justice because the respondent had already set out its response and the claims were at an early stage.

The tribunal accepted the claimants' joint paper apart, treating it as permissible further and better particulars or, if necessary, an amendment under Rules 29 and 30 and Selkent. It found that the document set out the essence of each claimant's case, did not add a new cause of action, and avoided the concern identified in Chandhok that the tribunal would have to look beyond the pleaded case to understand what was being alleged.

On the multiple-claim issue, the tribunal held that the two claims were based on the same set of facts for Rule 9 purposes, applying Brierley and Farmah. It refused to treat Mr Haddow's claim as non-compliant or to bar his participation, and said that if there had been a breach it would have waived or varied the requirement. The tribunal then directed a further preliminary hearing on time bar under s.111 ERA 1996 for both claims.