Administrative error leads to revocation of dismissal judgment: tribunal allows claim to proceed
A former employee who responded to a tribunal direction within time but used the wrong case number had her unfair dismissal claim reinstated after the tribunal revoked its original judgment.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was dismissed but had less than two years' service.
- The claimant asserted that her dismissal was for asserting a statutory right under section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
- The claimant responded to a tribunal direction within the time limit but used an incorrect case number.
- The original judgment dismissing the unfair dismissal claim was issued because the response was not matched to the file.
- The tribunal revoked the original judgment and allowed the unfair dismissal claim to proceed.
Timeline
-
Direction issued
The tribunal directed the claimant to confirm the basis of her unfair dismissal claim within seven days.
-
Claimant's response
The claimant emailed the tribunal confirming her claim was under section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, but used an incorrect case number.
-
Original judgment
The tribunal issued a judgment dismissing the unfair dismissal claim because it believed the claimant had not responded.
-
Claimant's email
Upon receiving the judgment, the claimant emailed the tribunal noting she had responded on 3 December 2023.
-
Reconsideration direction
The tribunal treated the claimant's email as a reconsideration application and invited views from both parties.
-
Claimant's reply
The claimant reaffirmed her view that the unfair dismissal claim should proceed.
-
Respondent's reply
The respondent opposed the reconsideration but provided no explanation.
-
Reconsideration judgment
Employment Judge S Jenkins revoked the original judgment and allowed the unfair dismissal claim to proceed.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether to reconsider its original judgment that dismissed the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant appeared not to have responded to a direction, when in fact she had responded but used an incorrect case number.
The outcome
The tribunal revoked its original judgment and allowed the unfair dismissal claim to proceed.
The key reason was that the claimant had responded within the time limit, and her error in the case number was a minor administrative mistake that should not prevent her claim from being heard.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was reinstated, not decided.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you respond to a tribunal direction, double-check the case number to avoid administrative mismatches.
- A tribunal may reconsider a judgment if an administrative error caused the claim to be dismissed prematurely.
- Claimants with less than two years' service can still bring an unfair dismissal claim if it is based on asserting a statutory right under section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
- If you receive a judgment dismissing your claim, check whether you had responded in time — a prompt application for reconsideration can rectify mistakes.
This case shows how a small administrative error can have serious consequences — but also how tribunals can correct such errors in the interests of justice.
The former employee had less than two years' service, which normally prevents an unfair dismissal claim. However, she argued that her dismissal was for asserting a statutory right under section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which does not require a minimum service period. When the tribunal directed her to confirm the basis of her claim, she emailed a response within the seven-day deadline — but used an incorrect case number. The response was not matched to her file, and the tribunal issued a judgment dismissing the claim on the basis that she had not replied.
What the losing side could have done differently
The respondent opposed the reconsideration but provided no explanation. Had they acknowledged the administrative error, the outcome would likely have been the same, but the case could have been resolved more quickly. The respondent's opposition without reasoning did not help their position.
Why this result matters
The tribunal emphasised that the interests of justice required the claim to proceed. This serves as a reminder that procedural errors by claimants do not automatically mean their claim is lost — especially when the error is minor and the response was otherwise timely. For employees considering a claim, this case highlights the importance of checking case numbers, but also that a prompt application for reconsideration can remedy such mistakes.
Similar cases
Driver installer with 4 months' service allowed to pursue automatically unfair dismissal claim
A driver installer who was dismissed after challenging his pay rate has been allowed to pursue an automatically unfair dismissal claim, despite having less than two years' service.
Administrative error saves whistleblowing claim from time limit trap
A front of house supervisor who named the wrong respondent on her claim form has had her unfair dismissal claim reinstated after the tribunal found the error was compounded by administrative delays.
Civil enforcement officer's multiple claim reinstated after administrative error
A civil enforcement officer's attempt to bring a claim on behalf of 12 colleagues was initially rejected due to a technical glitch in the online ET1 form, but the tribunal later revoked its decision after reconsideration.
Withdrawn unfair dismissal claim: no power to revive after reconsideration
A former employee who withdrew her unfair dismissal claim against Landmark Space Ltd could not revive it, even after applying for reconsideration. The tribunal confirmed it has no power to set aside a withdrawal.