Claim dismissed for missing ACAS certificate: a procedural trap that could not be fixed
A former employee's claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination were thrown out because the claim form lacked a valid ACAS early conciliation number, and a later certificate could not cure the defect.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #early-conciliation
- #jurisdiction
- #reconsideration
- #pryce-v-baxterstorey
Key facts
- The claimant presented a claim on 20 October 2021 for unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and arrears of pay.
- The claimant did not provide a valid ACAS early conciliation certificate number on the claim form.
- The claimant ticked a box claiming exemption, but the exemption did not apply.
- The claim was initially rejected, then accepted after the claimant provided a certificate, but later reconsidered.
- The Employment Appeal Tribunal decision in Pryce v Baxterstorey Ltd held that a missing certificate cannot be rectified by later provision.
- The tribunal revoked its acceptance and dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction.
Timeline
-
Claim presented
Mr Ionita presented a claim for unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and arrears of pay without an ACAS early conciliation certificate number.
-
Claim rejected
The claim was rejected because no valid ACAS certificate number was provided and the exemption claimed did not apply.
-
ACAS certificate provided
The claimant provided an ACAS early conciliation certificate dated 12 November 2021.
-
Claim accepted
Employment Judge Cookson decided the defect had been rectified and accepted the claim.
-
Case management hearing
It became apparent that the acceptance may have been contrary to rules following the EAT decision in Pryce v Baxterstorey Ltd.
-
Reconsideration judgment
Regional Employment Judge Franey revoked the acceptance and dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether it had jurisdiction to hear claims where the claimant failed to provide a valid ACAS early conciliation certificate number on the claim form, and whether providing a certificate after the deadline could fix the problem.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction.
- The claimant presented a claim on 20 October 2021 without an ACAS early conciliation certificate number, ticking an inapplicable exemption box.
- The claim was initially rejected, then accepted after the claimant provided a certificate on 12 November 2021.
- Following the EAT decision in Pryce v Baxterstorey Ltd, the tribunal reconsidered and revoked its acceptance, ruling that a missing certificate cannot be rectified by later provision.
- No compensation was awarded as the claim was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.
Lessons & takeaways
- Always include a valid ACAS early conciliation certificate number on your claim form – ticking an exemption box incorrectly can lead to rejection.
- If your claim is rejected for a missing certificate, you must present a fresh claim with the correct details; providing a certificate later may not fix the original defect.
- Check the latest case law: the EAT decision in Pryce v Baxterstorey Ltd means that missing early conciliation details cannot be rectified after the claim is presented.
- Act quickly: if you need to start again, do so promptly to avoid being out of time for your claims.
This case is a stark reminder that employment tribunal claims have strict procedural rules, and getting them wrong can be fatal – even if you try to fix the mistake later.
What happened
The former employee brought claims for unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and arrears of pay against Sweet Home by Patrick Ltd. But when they submitted the claim form on 20 October 2021, they did not provide a valid ACAS early conciliation certificate number. Instead, they ticked a box claiming an exemption that did not apply. The claim was initially rejected, but after the employee provided a certificate dated 12 November 2021, an employment judge accepted the claim.
Why the claim was dismissed
Months later, the Employment Appeal Tribunal's decision in Pryce v Baxterstorey Ltd made it clear that a missing early conciliation certificate is not a defect that can be rectified by simply providing one later. The tribunal has no power to accept a claim without a valid certificate number on the original form. The only option is to present a fresh claim with the correct details. As a result, the tribunal revoked its earlier acceptance and dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction.
What this means for similar claims
This case highlights the importance of getting the early conciliation process right from the start. If you fail to include a valid certificate number and your exemption is incorrect, you cannot fix it by sending a certificate later – you must start again. Any delay in doing so could mean your new claim is out of time. The lesson is clear: check the ACAS early conciliation requirements carefully before submitting your claim, and if in doubt, seek advice.
Similar cases
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.
Former employee's claims dismissed as out of time despite early conciliation
A former employee's unfair dismissal and discrimination claims were struck out after the tribunal found they were presented too late, even though she had started early conciliation.
Unfair dismissal claim rejected over early conciliation certificate error
A road operative's unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because his claim form omitted the full early conciliation certificate number and incorrectly claimed an exemption. The tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the case.
Service technician's unfair dismissal claim rejected for lack of early conciliation certificate
A service technician who presented an unfair dismissal claim without an early conciliation certificate, claiming an exemption for interim relief that was never applied for, had his claim rejected by the tribunal for lack of jurisdiction.