Mr S Nixon v JR Scaffolding Ltd — 2021

The original ET1 was submitted on 15 September 2020 and rejected because the respondent's name on the form did not match the name on the ACAS Early Conciliation certificate. A revised ET1 correcting the respondent's name was received on 9 October 2020 and was treated as an application under Rule 13 to reconsider the rejection. The Rule 13 application was outside the 14-day time limit by four days, so the tribunal first considered whether to extend time under Rule 5.

The tribunal extended time under Rule 5. It found that the claimant had acted quickly throughout, that there was no fault or delay attributable to him, and that there would be little or no prejudice to the respondent. Taking the claimant's case at its highest, the tribunal noted that any underlying time limit had not expired by the date of the Rule 13 application: on the claimant's account, dismissal occurred on 15 June 2020, the ordinary three-month limit expired on 14 September 2020, and the Early Conciliation extension expired on 14 October 2020. The tribunal also made no finding as to when the claimant was in fact dismissed.

Having extended time, the tribunal found that the defect in the original ET1 had been rectified by correcting the respondent's name to match the ACAS certificate. It therefore allowed the application and accepted the ET1. Under Rule 13(4), the claim was treated as presented on 9 October 2020, the date the defect was corrected. No substantive merits issues or remedy were determined in this judgment.