CLAIM FORM

Hamling v Coxlease School Ltd

EAT: Mr Recorder Luba QC: 19 May 2006

The claimant presented claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination to an employment tribunal on an ET1 claim form which was completed and signed by her solicitor. Under section 1, headed "Your details", the claimant's name had been entered but not her address, though the form indicated that an address had to be entered. Under section 12, headed "Your representative", it was stated that if a representative was appointed the tribunal would communicate with the representative and not the claimant, and the claimant's solicitor entered his name and full contact details. The form was referred to a tribunal chairman who rejected the claim pursuant to rule 3(2)(a) and (3) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2004, on the ground that by omitting to state her address on the claim form the claimant had failed to include all the "relevant required information", as required by rule 1(1) and defined in rule 1(4). Her application for a review, under rule 34(3)(e), was rejected on the same ground.

The claimant appealed.

MR RECORDER LUBA QC held:
(1) Where a claim form was referred to a chairman under rule 3(3) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2004, his function was a judicial one requiring him to consider both whether the omission was of "relevant" required information and whether the omission was material in the context of the particular claim and the overriding objective to deal with cases justly. Where, as in the present case, a claim form had been submitted by a solicitor on instructions and the form indicated that where a representative's details were given all future communications would be with the representative, and the solicitor's full contact details were provided, the omission of the claimant's personal address was irrelevant and immaterial and there was no breach of rule 1(4).

(2) It was inappropriate to use the power of review provided by rule 34(3)(e) where it was contended that the chairman had erroneously applied the procedural rules. Such a challenge should be made by way of an appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. While the decision to refuse a review was erroneous in law because the reason for it was the chairman's misdirection as to the scope of judicial discretion in rule 3, nothing in the Rules relating to a review could provide an avenue for reopening a decision to reject a claim form that failed to give relevant required information that was material to the claim.

The appeal was allowed.

Appearances: Peter Doughty (Knight & Co, Eastleigh) for the claimant; the employer did not appear and was not represented.