Claim rejected after naming wrong respondent on early conciliation certificate
A former employee's claim against Mr Chris Dawson was rejected because the early conciliation certificate named a different company. The tribunal accepted the claim against the correct employer but refused to add the individual.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #early-conciliation
- #name-mismatch
- #litigant-in-person
- #reconsideration-out-of-time
Key facts
- The claimant presented a claim on 16 September 2022 naming Chris Dawson as respondent.
- The Early Conciliation Certificate named Longwall Security Ltd, not Chris Dawson.
- The claim was rejected on 4 October 2022 due to the name mismatch.
- The claimant applied for reconsideration on 20 October 2022, two days out of time.
- The Employment Judge found the error was minor and extended time, accepting the claim against Longwall Security Ltd.
- The claim against Mr Dawson was rejected because no Early Conciliation Certificate was obtained for him.
Timeline
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented a claim for unfair dismissal and sex/marriage discrimination, naming Chris Dawson as respondent.
-
Claim rejected
Legal Officer King rejected the claim because the Early Conciliation Certificate named Longwall Security Ltd, not Chris Dawson.
-
Claimant sought clarification
Claimant emailed the Tribunal asking for explanation of the rejection.
-
Tribunal provided reasons
Tribunal sent a letter explaining the rejection and how to apply for reconsideration.
-
Application for reconsideration
Claimant applied for reconsideration, stating she made an error due to inexperience.
-
Judgment issued
Employment Judge Midgley granted reconsideration, accepted claim against Longwall Security Ltd, and rejected claim against Mr Dawson.
The legal issue
Whether a claim can proceed when the early conciliation certificate names one respondent (Longwall Security Ltd) but the claim form names a different respondent (Mr Chris Dawson), and whether the error was minor enough to allow the claim to continue.
The outcome
The tribunal granted the claimant's application for reconsideration out of time and accepted the claim against Longwall Security Ltd, the correct employer. However, the claim against Mr Chris Dawson was rejected because no early conciliation certificate had been obtained for him.
- The claim against Longwall Security Ltd was accepted as of the original presentation date.
- The claim against Mr Chris Dawson was rejected due to the lack of an early conciliation certificate.
- No compensation was awarded as the claim was only at the acceptance stage.
Lessons & takeaways
- Ensure the name on the early conciliation certificate matches exactly the respondent named in the claim form to avoid rejection.
- If you name an individual instead of the company, you may need a separate early conciliation certificate for that individual.
- If your claim is rejected, you have 14 days to apply for reconsideration; if you miss the deadline, explain why and the tribunal may extend time.
- Seek advice or use ACAS early conciliation guidance to avoid simple errors that can delay your claim.
This case shows how a simple administrative error can derail an employment claim at the very first hurdle. The former employee named Mr Chris Dawson as the respondent in her claim form, but the early conciliation certificate she obtained from ACAS listed Longwall Security Ltd – the company Mr Dawson worked for. The tribunal rejected the claim because the names did not match.
What went wrong
The claimant, representing herself, admitted she was unaware of the technical requirements. She had spoken to ACAS and explained the error was due to her inexperience. The tribunal acknowledged that the mistake was minor and that it would be unjust to reject the claim against the company. However, the claim against Mr Dawson personally could not proceed because no early conciliation had been carried out in his name.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant could have checked the early conciliation certificate before submitting the claim form. If she had named Longwall Security Ltd as the respondent from the start, the claim would have been accepted without delay. Alternatively, she could have obtained a separate early conciliation certificate for Mr Dawson if she intended to pursue a claim against him personally.
Why this matters
This case highlights the importance of getting the respondent's name right at the early conciliation stage. The rules are strict: the name on the certificate must match the name on the claim form. A mismatch can lead to rejection, and even if the error is minor, the claim against any respondent not covered by the certificate will be rejected. For anyone considering a tribunal claim, double-checking names before submitting can save time and frustration.
Similar cases
Name error on claim form: tribunal accepts late claim after rule change
A railway employee's unfair dismissal claim was initially rejected because the respondent name on the claim form didn't match the early conciliation certificate. The tribunal granted reconsideration, accepting the claim from the date the error was explained.
Hotel night worker's constructive dismissal claim struck out after delay in resigning
A tribunal struck out a constructive unfair dismissal claim from a night team member who waited 2.5 months after the last alleged breach before resigning, finding he had affirmed the contract.
Whistleblowing claim: repeated amendment applications not unreasonable enough for costs
A former chartered accountant who made multiple applications to amend her whistleblowing and sex discrimination claims avoided a costs order, even though most amendments were refused. The tribunal said her conduct was not unreasonable or vexatious.
Redundancy claim struck out for non-disclosure: costs of £6,853 awarded
A senior manager's unfair dismissal claim was struck out after he failed to disclose documents about his new job. The tribunal ordered him to pay £6,853 in costs for unreasonable conduct.