Unison & Anor v National Probation Service South Yorkshire & Anor [2010] UKEAT 0339_09_0402 (4 February 2010)

Unison & Anor v National Probation Service South Yorkshire & Anor [2010] UKEAT 0339_09_0402 (4 February 2010)

The ET1 and attached details made it clear that Unison was making a claim, and the omission of the ET1a form was not a material defect. The Employment Judge erred in requiring a review application and in failing to accept the claim. The claim should be accepted, applying the overriding objective and relevant case law.

Citation
[2010] UKEAT 0339_09_0402
Parties
Appellant: Unison; First Respondent: National Probation Service South Yorkshire; Second Respondent: Addaction
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
04 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Employment Tribunal Procedure, Transfer of Undertakings (protection of Employment) Regulations (tupe), Claim Form Requirements, Amendment of Claims
Employment Law Civil Procedure Employment Tribunal Procedure Transfer of Undertakings (protection of Employment) Regulations (tupe) Claim Form Requirements Amendment of Claims

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Unison

Appellant

National Probation Service South Yorkshire

First Respondent

Addaction

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether omission of ET1a form invalidated Unison's claim
  2. 2 Whether Employment Judge erred in refusing to accept Unison's claim
  3. 3 Whether a review application was necessary before claim could be accepted

Ratio Decidendi

The ET1 and attached details made it clear that Unison was making a claim, and the omission of the ET1a form was not a material defect. The Employment Judge erred in requiring a review application and in failing to accept the claim. The claim should be accepted, applying the overriding objective and relevant case law.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Unison's claim to be accepted by the Employment Tribunal