Mr A Tarvit v , Consultant SSE Electricity Ltd — 2019

The case concerned a procedural issue rather than the merits of the claimant's pleaded complaints. The claimant had presented claims said to be of unfair constructive dismissal and disability discrimination. The respondent's ET3 was sent on 8 May 2019 but was rejected because Box 2.3, containing the respondent's address, had been left blank.

The tribunal held that the original rejection under Rule 17 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 was correct because the respondent's address was a mandatory item. The respondent then resubmitted the form on 15 May 2019 with the missing information completed and applied for reconsideration under Rule 19 and for an extension of time under Rule 20.

Applying the overriding objective and the approach in Kwik Save Stores Ltd v Swain, the tribunal considered the reason for the error, whether there was a stateable defence, and the balance of prejudice. It accepted that the omission was an inexplicable mistake, found that the respondent had a stateable defence, and concluded that the prejudice to the respondent if time were not extended would be substantial. The ET3 was therefore treated as presented on 15 May 2019 and accepted although late. No substantive liability or remedy was decided in this judgment.