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.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #multiple-claim
- #rule-10-rejection
- #reconsideration
- #et1a-form
- #administrative-error
Key facts
- The claimant intended to bring a multiple claim on behalf of himself and 12 others.
- The ET1 form submitted online did not display the names and addresses of the additional claimants on the PDF version.
- The Tribunal initially rejected the additional claimants' claims for non-compliance with Rule 10.
- The claimant consistently maintained he had entered the names and addresses on the online form.
- An ET1a form received by the Tribunal on 7 August 2020 contained the names and addresses of all claimants.
- The Tribunal revoked its earlier rejection and accepted the claims as validly instituted on 7 August 2020.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Mr Soares started employment with the London Borough of Hounslow.
-
TUPE transfer to Serco
Mr Soares' employment transferred to Serco Limited under TUPE.
-
Alleged less favourable terms imposed
Mr Soares and others were required to work under a contract with less favourable terms and conditions.
-
ACAS Early Conciliation notified
Mr Soares and 12 other individuals notified ACAS for Early Conciliation.
-
ACAS certificate issued
ACAS closed conciliation and issued a certificate listing all 13 prospective claimants.
-
ET1 claim presented
Mr Soares presented an online ET1 claim, including an ET1a form with names and addresses of all claimants.
-
Preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Pritchard heard the respondent's application regarding jurisdiction for additional claimants.
-
Reserved judgment rejecting additional claims
The Tribunal rejected the claims of the additional claimants for non-compliance with Rule 10.
-
Claimant applied for reconsideration
Mr Soares applied for reconsideration, providing names and addresses of additional claimants.
-
Reconsideration hearing
Employment Judge Pritchard heard the reconsideration and reviewed the ET1a form.
-
Decision upon reconsideration
The Tribunal revoked the earlier judgment and accepted all claims as validly instituted on 7 August 2020.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claims of additional claimants were validly instituted, given that the ET1 form did not list their names and addresses, and whether to reconsider its earlier rejection.
The outcome
The tribunal decided to revoke its earlier judgment and accept all claims as validly instituted on 7 August 2020.
The key reason was that the claimant had consistently maintained he entered the names and addresses on the online form, and an ET1a form received by the tribunal on 7 August 2020 contained the names and addresses of all claimants. The tribunal found that the earlier rejection was based on a misunderstanding of the facts.
No compensation was awarded as this was a jurisdictional decision, not a final hearing.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are bringing a multiple claim, ensure you clearly indicate this on the ET1 form and provide the names and addresses of all claimants, preferably using an ET1a form.
- If your claim is rejected for technical reasons, you can apply for reconsideration if you believe there has been an error or misunderstanding.
- Keep records of all communications with the tribunal, including any queries about missing details, as this can support your case on reconsideration.
- Even if you are not legally represented, you can still successfully argue that a technical glitch should not prevent your claim from proceeding.
This case highlights the importance of procedural compliance when bringing multiple claims to an employment tribunal. The claimant, a civil enforcement officer, attempted to bring a claim on behalf of himself and 12 colleagues after their employer, Serco Limited, allegedly imposed less favourable terms and conditions. However, a technical glitch in the online ET1 form meant that the names and addresses of the additional claimants did not appear on the PDF version, leading to an initial rejection.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal initially rejected the additional claims for non-compliance with Rule 10, which requires the names and addresses of all claimants to be provided. However, upon reconsideration, the tribunal found that the claimant had indeed submitted an ET1a form containing the necessary details on the same day as the ET1. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had entered the names and addresses online, but they were not displayed due to a system error. The tribunal therefore revoked its earlier decision and accepted all claims as validly instituted.
What could have been done differently
Serco argued that the claims were not validly instituted because the ET1 form itself did not list the additional claimants. However, the tribunal noted that the ET1a form, which is designed for multiple claims, had been received and should have been considered. The respondent could have avoided the jurisdictional challenge by acknowledging the ET1a form earlier. For claimants, this case shows the importance of using the correct forms and keeping evidence of submissions, especially when technical issues arise.
Why this matters
This decision reinforces that tribunals will take a pragmatic approach when there is evidence that a claimant has attempted to comply with procedural requirements but has been thwarted by administrative or technical errors. It also demonstrates that reconsideration applications can succeed if new evidence or a misunderstanding comes to light. For employees considering multiple claims, this case provides reassurance that a genuine effort to include all claimants will not be easily defeated by a technical glitch.
Similar cases
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.
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.
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.
Judgments set aside after tribunal failed to phone absent respondent
A tribunal has set aside its own earlier judgments after admitting it should have telephoned the respondent before proceeding in their absence. The case will now be reheard.