Shirley Ridley v HB Kirtley t/a Queen's Court Business Centre & Ors
[2024] EWCA Civ 884
The Sports PR Company Limited v Valentina Londono Cardona
4 July 2023
[2023] EAT 110
Employment Appeal Tribunal
An employee mistakenly named the wrong person on her claim form for unpaid wages. The judge initially dismissed it, but later accepted it, although it was filed late. A higher court agreed it was reasonable to accept the late form because of the mistake. The higher court also found a small mistake in the calculation of her final payment and sent the case back to the lower court to fix this. The higher court also refused the employer's request to pay the employee's legal fees.
Key Facts
- •Claimant (Cardona) brought a wages claim against the respondent (The Sports PR Company Limited) for unpaid wages during her notice period.
- •Claimant initially incorrectly named a director, Caroline McAteer, as the respondent on the claim form, despite correctly naming the company on the ACAS EC Certificate.
- •The Employment Tribunal initially rejected the claim under Rule 12 due to the discrepancy but later accepted it under Rule 13 after correction, deeming the claim presented on 8 December 2020 (out of time).
- •The Tribunal extended time, finding the claimant's error reasonable and not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time.
- •Respondent appealed the time extension and merits decision; the merits appeal was deemed unarguable at the sift stage.
- •The EAT upheld the Tribunal's decision on the time extension but remitted the case for recalculation of wages due to an error in accounting for the three-day SSP waiting period.
- •The Respondent's appeal regarding the merits of the original tribunal decision was not pursued and was dismissed.
- •The claimant's application for pro bono costs was refused.
Legal Principles
Rule 12 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 regarding claim rejection for discrepancies.
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
Rule 13 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 regarding reconsideration of rejected claims.
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
Section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 concerning extension of time for presenting claims; the 'reasonably practicable' test.
Employment Rights Act 1996
EAT Rule 3(10) concerning appeals against sift decisions.
EAT Rules of Procedure
The standard of review for Employment Tribunal decisions regarding time extension is perversity or lack of sufficient reasoning ('Meek compliant').
Adams v British Telecommunications plc [2017] ICR 382
Pro bono costs awards under section 194A Legal Services Act 2007.
Legal Services Act 2007
Outcomes
Respondent's appeal on the time extension was dismissed.
The Tribunal's finding that the claimant's mistake was reasonable and rendered it not reasonably practicable to present the claim on time was a finding of fact within the Tribunal's entitlement and not perverse.
The case was remitted to the Tribunal to recalculate the wages award.
The Tribunal erred in its calculation of SSP by not accounting for the three-day waiting period.
Respondent's appeal concerning the merits of the original Tribunal decision was dismissed.
The respondent failed to comply with EAT Rule 3(10) and did not appeal the Registrar's decision to refuse an extension of time.
Claimant's application for pro bono costs was refused.
The appeal, while ultimately unsuccessful except for the SSP point, was not so plainly misconceived or unreasonably conducted as to justify a costs award.