Claim dismissed Employment Tribunal · 21 August 2023

Stud farm groom's claim struck out after naming wrong employer

A groom who named her employer's directors instead of the company has had her unfair dismissal claim struck out, as the tribunal found it was too late to add the correct respondent.

2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026

Case details

Key facts

  • The claimants were employed by Hildare Stud Farm Ltd and dismissed on 8 July 2021.
  • The claimants obtained Early Conciliation certificates naming Hildare Stud Farm Ltd as the prospective respondent.
  • The claimants' ET1 forms named Hugh Sims-Hilditch and Anna Sims-Hilditch as respondents, not Hildare Stud Farm Ltd.
  • Hildare Stud Farm Ltd was added as a respondent on 30 August 2022, over 9 months after the time limit expired.
  • The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimants to have brought claims against Hildare in time.
  • The claims against both respondents were struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success.

Timeline

  1. First claimant started employment

    Chloe Naylor began employment with Anna Sims-Hilditch.

  2. TUPE transfer to Hildare Stud Farm Ltd

    The claimants' employment transferred to Hildare Stud Farm Ltd under TUPE.

  3. Dismissal

    The claimants were dismissed from their employment with Hildare Stud Farm Ltd.

  4. Early Conciliation started

    Mr Naylor contacted ACAS for early conciliation, naming Hildare Stud Farm Ltd as the prospective respondent.

  5. ET1 presented

    The claimants presented their ET1 forms, naming Hugh Sims-Hilditch and Anna Sims-Hilditch as respondents.

  6. First respondent's response

    Hugh Sims-Hilditch filed a response asserting he was not the employer and that Hildare Stud Farm Ltd was the correct respondent.

  7. Hildare added as respondent

    Employment Judge Cadney added Hildare Stud Farm Ltd as a second respondent on a provisional basis.

  8. Preliminary hearing

    Employment Judge Hogarth struck out the claims against both respondents.

The outcome

The tribunal struck out all claims against both respondents.

  • Claims against the first respondent (Hugh Sims-Hilditch) were struck out because he was not the employer and no early conciliation certificate named him.
  • Claims against the second respondent (Hildare Stud Farm Ltd) were struck out because they were added over a year after the time limit expired, and it was reasonably practicable for the claimants to have named the correct employer in time.

No compensation was awarded as the claims were dismissed in their entirety.

Lessons & takeaways

  • Always check the exact legal name of your employer before starting a tribunal claim – the ACAS early conciliation certificate must name the correct respondent.
  • If you name the wrong person or company, you risk your claim being struck out as out of time, even if you later try to add the correct party.
  • A lay representative's lack of legal knowledge is not usually a good excuse for missing a deadline – the tribunal expects reasonable diligence.
  • Respond promptly to the other side's response – ignoring it can lead to strike-out applications succeeding.

A procedural error that proved fatal

This case shows how a seemingly small mistake – naming the wrong respondent on a tribunal claim form – can derail an entire case. The groom and a colleague were dismissed from their jobs at a stud farm in July 2021. They had been transferred to Hildare Stud Farm Ltd under TUPE in 2020, but they still thought of the company's directors, Hugh and Anna Sims-Hilditch, as their employers.

When their lay representative (the first claimant's father) contacted ACAS for early conciliation, he correctly named the company. But when he filled in the ET1 claim forms, he named the directors instead. The directors' response made clear they were not the employer, yet no action was taken to correct the error for over a year.

What the losing side could have done differently

The tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable for the claimants to have brought claims against the company in time. The early conciliation certificate had the company's name on it, and the directors' response in March 2022 explicitly stated who the real employer was. Instead of acting on that information, the representative argued that the directors were the employers – a position the tribunal described as having no reasonable prospects.

By the time the company was finally added as a respondent in August 2022, over nine months after the three-month time limit had expired, it was too late. The tribunal had no power to extend the time limit because the claimants could have easily named the correct party from the start.

Why the result matters

This decision is a stark reminder that employment tribunal claims are subject to strict time limits and procedural rules. Naming the wrong respondent is not a minor technicality – it can be fatal. The case also highlights the risks of relying on a lay representative who is unfamiliar with tribunal procedure. While the tribunal acknowledged the representative's lack of legal experience, it did not accept that as a reason for the delay.

For anyone considering a tribunal claim, the key takeaway is simple: make sure you know your employer's correct legal name and use it consistently from the early conciliation stage onwards. If you are unsure, check your contract, payslips, or the Companies House register before you submit your claim.

Similar cases

Claim dismissed · Aug 2023

Groom at stud farm loses unfair dismissal claim after naming wrong respondent

A groom who named an individual instead of the employing company on her claim form had her unfair dismissal case struck out as out of time. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to have brought the claim against the correct employer in time.

strike-outout-of-timeearly-conciliation
Claim dismissed · Sept 2022

Dismissed employee's claim thrown out for missing ACAS early conciliation deadline

A former employee's unfair dismissal and discrimination claims were dismissed after the tribunal found they were presented more than three months after dismissal, without ACAS early conciliation having been started in time.

out-of-timeearly-conciliationnullity
Claim dismissed · Dec 2023

Healthcare assistant's whistleblowing claim thrown out for being over two years late

A healthcare assistant who waited over two years to bring a whistleblowing and discrimination claim after his dismissal had his case dismissed as out of time. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to have presented the claim within the statutory time limit.

out-of-timeearly-conciliationfinancial-constraints
Claim dismissed · Dec 2023

COVID test grievance claim struck out as out of time and lacking merit

A former employee who claimed he was victimised for leaving work to take a COVID-19 test had his case struck out for being out of time and having no reasonable prospect of success. He was also ordered to pay £50,186.50 in costs.

health-safetyunfair-dismissalout-of-time