Application details

The Court of Appeal has held in The Trustees of the William Jones’s Schools Foundation v Parry, that although the claimant had not provided any particulars about her claim in her ET1 form (the application form), the school knew enough details about the claim to be able to submit a defence.

Basic facts

Ms Parry, who was dismissed by reason of redundancy as Director of Dance but re-hired the next day as Head of Dance, presented a claim for unfair dismissal and arrears of wages. She filled in all the relevant boxes on her ET1 form except for one in Section 5 asking for the date when her employment ended which was left empty. Instead she ticked the box which asked: “Is your employment continuing?”

In Section 8 which asked for the details of the claim, she ticked the box indicating that she had been unfairly dismissed. In box 8.2, which asked for details of the claim, her solicitors typed in “Please see attached”. However, the document they attached related to an entirely different case.

Tribunal and EAT decisions

A tribunal judge sent out notice of the claim to the school, but without any particulars attached to it. When the school rang to ask for the details, the tribunal said it did not have any. The school then wrote to the tribunal asking for the claim to be rejected on the basis that it was in a form “which cannot sensibly be responded to” as per Rule 12(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. However, a second judge said that he did not have the power to reconsider the decision to allow the claim to proceed.

The EAT, however, held that no reasonable judge properly directing themselves in law could have concluded that an ET1 in this form could sensibly be responded to. However, this error was irrelevant as there was only one provision in rule 12 that allows proceedings to be determined without a hearing. That is, when the tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the case. As that did not apply here, the first judge’s error was immaterial and it dismissed the school’s appeal.

Decision of Court of Appeal

Although the Court of Appeal upheld that decision, it did so on the basis that the school knew perfectly well that Ms Parry had been employed by them as Director of Dance from 1 September 1996 until that job had come to an end on 31 August 2015, after which she had been re-engaged as Head of Dance the next day. Their case was that the dismissal was a genuine redundancy; her case was that it was not.

The school could therefore have filed an ET3 (the defence form) confirming the date of dismissal on grounds of redundancy, arguing that it had “acted reasonably in treating [it] as a sufficient reason for dismissal." Both parties could then have been directed to give further details of their case, but at least the proceedings would have been started.

The Court made clear, however, that it was not laying down a general rule that respondents to claims must always be treated as having detailed knowledge of a claim. For example, if a claimant alleged sex or race or disability discrimination without any particulars, an employer might well struggle to respond and it should thus be rejected under rule 12(1)(b). But in many unfair dismissal cases there is a single determinative factor known to both parties, so that even if particulars are omitted from the ET1 the employer can still respond.