Legal News

Claim rejected due to discrepancy between name of respondent on EC Certificate and ET1 claim form (Giny v SNA Transport Ltd)

Published on: 07 July 2017

Table of contents

  • Original news
  • What is the impact of this case?
  • What is the relevant background law?
  • What were the facts?
  • What did the employment tribunal decide?
  • What were the issues and arguments on appeal?
  • What did the EAT decide?
  • Case details

Article summary

Employment analysis: An Employment Judge was entitled to reject a claim form under Rule 12(2A) of the ET Rules where the claimant had named the respondent company’s sole director as the prospective respondent when carrying out early conciliation (EC) but named the limited company as the respondent in his ET1 claim form. The judge was entitled to find that this amounted to more than a minor error, which necessitated the rejection of the claim, according to the EAT.

Popular documents