Coach Stores Ltd. Employment Tribunal Case: Claim Reinstated After Error in Respondent's Name
The EAT has reinstated a claim against Coach Stores Ltd after the Employment Tribunal initially rejected it. This was due to a mistake in the respondent's name on the ET1 form.
• public
Employment Tribunal Reinstates Claim Against Coach Stores Ltd. After Naming Error
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has overturned a decision by the Watford Employment Tribunal to reject a claim against Coach Stores Ltd., allowing the case to proceed. The initial rejection stemmed from a discrepancy between the name of the respondent on the ET1 claim form and the name of the employer on the early conciliation certificate.
Ms. Y Chen, the claimant, had filed a claim following her dismissal from Coach Stores Ltd. However, on the ET1 form, she listed "Emily Dickinson (Tapestry Group)" instead of Coach Stores Ltd. as the respondent, although the address provided was the same as Coach's headquarters. Tapestry is the parent company of Coach.
Legal officer F Khan at the Watford Employment Tribunal rejected the claim, citing the mismatch in names. Chen, acting as a litigant in person, applied for reconsideration out of time, citing mental health issues.
The Appeal Tribunal's Decision
The EAT, presided over by The Honourable Mr Justice Choudhury, found that the tribunal had erred in its decision. The key legal issue was whether the legal officer had properly applied Rule 12(2A) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. This rule deals with situations where there are errors in the name or address of the respondent.
The EAT held that the tribunal failed to consider whether the claimant had made an error and whether it would be in the interests of justice to reject the claim. The judgment emphasised that, given Ms Chen was unrepresented, excessive formality should be avoided, and the focus should be on the substance of the claim.
Mr. Justice Choudhury noted that the early conciliation certificate clearly named Coach Stores Limited as the prospective respondent. He also highlighted several references to "Coach" within the details of the claim, suggesting that Coach was always the intended target of the complaint.
The EAT concluded that an error had been made in naming Ms. Dickinson, an HR manager, instead of Coach Stores Ltd. It further determined that it would not be in the interests of justice to reject the claim, given the readily identifiable employer, the specific incidents outlined in the claim, and the fact that the error could be easily remedied.
The appeal was therefore allowed, the original decision was set aside, and the claim against Coach Stores Ltd. will now proceed.
Read the entire judgement here: Ms Y Chen v Coach Stores Ltd [2025] EAT 108
